Price, color, sharpness, light-weight. Macro comes in handy too

cheap plastic feel, i feel it''''s going to break with my f4''''s camera weight on it, but so far so good. Auto focus searches and searches (esp in dark lighting)

I was debating between a nikon 75-300 or this one. I chose this one because of reviews and test results. I am very happy with this lens, far from perfect but great for the $. This is the only non-Nikon lens i have and I was looking for an excuse to get it replaced with a Nikon zoom, but when i look at the pics from the lens, i am far too impressed to part with it. I mainly use it at 300mm between f5.6-f11 and the results are great. Sharp pics with great color. Did i mention the colors are GREAT!

Customer Service

got my rebate back quick. I made a mistake with the rebate the first time around and they notified me to correct it. I always thought companies hated paying back rebates and would do anything to not

Similar Products Used:

nikon 35-135 nikon primes

easy to use, macro ability a nice extra, sharp throughout focal length and at extreme f-stops.

auto focus is sometimes a problem under low night (on my Nikon F70 and F80). however, manual focus not a problem to use.

I’m very happy with my purchase of this lens. I’d had a Nikon 75-240 which I sold to a friend as I wanted a lens that was a bit longer. At first I thought the macro ability was just a bonus, however, in practice it gave me another type of photography to explore. For use in landscapes and for portraits I’ve found this a very easy to use, and it has produced very sharp pictures. Like a few of the other reviewers, this lens exceeded my expectations, and is probably the best value for money lens I have purchased.

Customer Service

not needed, not problems in just under a year.

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 75-240 & 35-80 Sigma 24 and 17-35.

Price, good, contrasty glass

Racked out it doen''t balance well on my Nikon N-80. Autofocus tends to hunt excessively in low light or beyond 200 mm. Macro switch is small, inconvenitely located and sticks, making it hard to switch from macro back to normal operation.

I was really pleasantly surprised by this lens. I bought it right before a 3 month trip overseas for those emergency long-range shots, although I mostly planned on using a 18-35 zoom and a 50 mm regular lens. The lens was SHARP, even at 300 mm when rested on something. For the money, you cannot beat this lens.

Customer Service

Never had to use, but lens comes with 6 year warranty (!)

Similar Products Used:

Canon 80-200; Canon 75-300; Vivitar 70-300.

Sharp optics, light weight, metal mount. Bonus of 1.4x teleconvertor nice touch!

Mostly plastic construction, but what lens isn''t these days? Noisy focus. Zoom is a bit, but I tend to prefer a stiff feel to my zooms.

In comparison with others, I probably paid a bit too much, but I wanted to be able to return the lens if I was not satisified. No need! A great lens!! I have used it wide open at the 300mm end both on a tripod and handheld with fantastic results. Took some outstanding photos at a local Raptor center at focal lengths ranging from 100-300mm and Fstops of 4 to 11. You can''t go wrong. I did some research and decided on this lens due to the high marks it got in comparison with the Nikon version ( I shoot an N90s).

Customer Service

Havenot needed

Similar Products Used:

None

Light weight, great dampening on zooming, macro capability is great

slow focus and slow aperture (but I''m not complaining, ).I''m saving my money for a 2.8 some day.

I think that this lens is probably the best value long zoom lens out there. I bought this one with a 1.4x tamron TC and it works but is quite slow on autofocus. I''ve only shot one roll of film so far and it seemed to work okay. I photographed my 2-year old son, a neighbors cat and some softly lit grass stems with a great background blur. Excellent handling, zooming characteristics. For the price (remember the price) you cannot go wrong.

Customer Service

?

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 70-300, Canon 100-300 usm, canon 75-300. Canon 200 2.8 USM.

Sharp, compact, cheap.

Slow focusing
Focusing tends to hunt especially at the 200+ range.

Nicely built lens with firm zooming. Sharp throughout the range.

Similar Products Used:

Canon EF 3.5/5.6 28-80mm II

Light weight, and compact. Good optics. Macro.

A little slow focusing.

I like the range of this lense, but it looks a little weird extended to the 300mm range. But I guess that's how Tamron keeps it compact. Overall I like this lense. Yes the focus is a little slow in less than perfect lighting conditions. But overall it is a good low cost choice.

Customer Service

Haven't needed it.

Similar Products Used:

Tamron 28-70

Lightweight
Dead silent AF
Quick operation
Hardy construction
A great '70-210mm' lens packaged as a 300mm

Pictures shot at 300mm come out looking like they were taken with 6 ounces of Vaseline on the lens

I bought this lens for one reason: Price. This is a bad reason to buy pretty much anything, and the valuable lesson that has been learned here is one which used to be posted on Spyderco Knives website: "Buy the best you can afford" However, I didn't heed this warning and instead opted for the cheap route. Beginners with a tight budget will do fine with this lens as long as they keep this in mind: this is not a 70-300mm lens, it is, for all practical purposes a 70-210mm. Sure, the lens will hit 300mm, but pictures taken at that focal range will be cloudy, soft, and downright blurry, even with a tripod or rest. I just returned from Egypt where I shot around thirty rolls using this lens for 30% of my shots. Out of those, I had to toss around forty or so pictures into the trash as the subjects were too out of focus to be useful. From 70mm through 210mm or so, the pictures were great: no vignetting, no flare, no noticeable distortion. Colors were crisp and DOF just as I had intended when taking the shot. However, I did purchase this lens for its long focal length and cheap price, and discovered that I certainly ended up sacrificing one for another. My advice to all those looking for a good, cheap, well made 70-210mm zoom should definitely consider this lens. However, if the longer focal length is of utmost importance, look elsewhere for either a prime 300mm or another of Tamron's offerings. Overall, the $199 price tag, along with a twenty dollar rebate, makes this an excellent value for the beginner, but by no means should this be the only lens in your bag.

Customer Service

They answer their email within six hours...

Similar Products Used:

Canon 28-90mm USM (My primary travel lens)

relatively Low Cost
Nine bladed diaphragm
Low light falloff
comes with hood
good contrast & sharpness
macro feature is nice
feels fairly well built

not the fastest focusing
extra length at macro

I'm fairly well pleased with this lens. I got it based on the reviews of the older version--which has the same optical configuration. The changes are a nicer housing/grip and a change in mechanical structure to allow the same elements to be extended further for greater macro capability. That said, it's not really designed to be a great 1:2 macro; so tripod it, stop it down, and be prepared for possibly soft images. Other reviewers have noticed it soft at the 300 end. Mine doesn't appear so (and I've used some fine lenses over time to which to compare), but because of how extended it is at 300, I think the old rule of 1/focal length for shutter speed doesn't apply. Handheld, you need 1/500 or faster and a steady hand. I haven't yet done a standardized comparison of sharpness over the focal range, but in real use have found it to be fairly sharp throughout the range, better on the shorter end--so much so that I think I can put off getting an 85/1.8 for a while because this zoom is good enough for my portrait purposes. Light fall-off throughout the range is very well controlled: not bad wide open, much improved 1/2 stop down, tiny at 1 stop down and just about gone at 2 (tested on slide film). Contrast isn't too high, but good with good color saturation and low color fringing. It's designed more for portraits than for, say, basketball. Focusing-wise (mine is Nikon mount) it will hunt if the new subject distance changes a lot, but performs well if tracking a subject at relatively fixed distance. I gave four stars because there isn't a 4.5 option.

Similar Products Used:

None

wide range
light weight (435 g)

None

I compared the new Tamron (572 model) with the well known Nikon 70-300 ED. Some say it is the same lense. Indeed the optics (number and arrangement of lenses) is identical but the antireflection coating is different. You can proof this if you look to the reflection of a bright light source at the lense surfaces. Now which AR-coating is better?
In general I observed that the coatings of Sigma and Tamron lenses are significant worse compared to Nikon and Canon. On one hand this has an effect on the contrast and sharpness of the fotos. On the other hand the total light transmittance (at the same focal length and aperture stops) is smaller. I measured (!) that ligth transmittance of some Sigma lenses are a factor 1.5 worse compared to Nikon. Therfore you need a factor 1.5 longer exposure times.
These were general remarks not valid for the Tamron 70-300. Here light transmittance is observed to be equal to Nikon 70-300 although they have different AR-coatings. Moreover the AF-system of my Nikon F70 worked faster (hunting) together with the Tamron, I do not know why. But the dealer confirmed my observation.

So if you are planning to buy a compact Tele-zoom you might save money by buying the Tamron. Of course you should by aware of the specific problems (slow Tele-zoom lense require tripod for excellent pictures in any case) that are valid for the Tamron as well.

Similar Products Used:

NIKON 70-300 ED