I am using this lens for nature / wildlife photography until I can afford a 150-600mm. Fantastic value for the price - no stabilizer means that you have to make use of high iso or fast shutter speeds, but I’ve gotten some very crisp handheld shots with this lens nonetheless. The autofocus isn’t the best either but works if your subject is prominent; i personally prefer manual focus when shooting wildlife anyway. A great beginner lens as it teaches you to thrive in the face of adversity, and provides you with crisp photos once you learn how to use it properly. This lens will make you a better photographer.

print stickers | sticker printing | printing services | business printing

Price

Blur at full telephoto with Rebel XT.
Lens rotates when focusing which is an issue when using polarizing filters.

I purchased this to go with my Rebel XT to use for outdoor photography. Even though longer focal lengths are recommended for wildlife photography I have managed to get some good results from this lens. The lens is not to heavy to pack along and so far as proved to be durable.
The main issue I have found with the lens is at full telephoto the edges of the subject I am photographing are blurred or appear to have a double edge. If I back the zoom off slightly this goes away.
All in all it's a good lens for the price. I hope to eventually move to faster longer lenses in the future.

Customer Service

none needed

Similar Products Used:

Tamron 70-210mm for Pentax KAF.

Compact, lightweight relatively sturdy dirtcheap with decent picture quality ideal for lightweight hikes

AF is noisy and hunts sometimes in low light not really sharp at 300mm

For this price you mostlikely won't get anything better. Best used stopped down to F/8-16 for best sharpness. Use the 300mm only in emergency (a tad soft). The lens works as expected for that price, and if you don't pint bigger than 5x7, you can't find anything better (for that price).

Customer Service

never needed

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 70-300 (pain in the lower spine)

- lightweight - cheap - reasonably fast - over 4x zoom range

- picture quality at 'extremes' isn't that good - MACRO? what macro?

After visiting an airshow whilst only carrying a 105mm, I realised that many pictures are impossible to get without a decent tele(zoom)lens. I then found this lens at a reasonable price secondhand and I have not been disappointed; it does exactly what I bought it for: taking distance photographs at good sharpness, contrast and colour. Especially the weight is an additional bonus; there is hardly a reason not to take this lens along if you feel you might need it. If you don't, it still won't break your back being useless. One peculiar thing, but that might just be me, is the lens diameter; 58 mm is unlike any other lens I've seen (most seem to be 49, 55, 62, 72 - anything but 58!) and that makes it difficult to exchange filters. And whoever dubbed this a MACRO... yeah well, at 300mm and 1.5 m focal distance it is hardly worse than a 105 mm at 50 cm, but taking into account the shutter speed needed and the 5.6 aperture it isn't really what I would call macro. Then again, I seem to have a model that doesn't have that little macro-switch on the side (brandspecific? mine is Minolta). The speed of the lens isn't quite bad - 4-5.6 over the range is as much as my contemporarily owned 28-105 over it's focal range so I'm not complaining there. Also if I'm not mistaken, the 5.6 only 'kicks in' very close to 300mm, so for most of the time it actually works at 4.5 I agree with previous posters calling it a good lens for portraits; the lens seems to give it's best quality pics between 100 and 150 mm, exactly what you need for portraits. Sure, you can't really get that very tight focusing you'd get with f/2.8... can't have it all can you? I haven't used it extensively enough (nor taken notes of how I made the pictures) to judge how well it performs at different apertures and/or high zoom - I only use it to take the occasional picture impossible with another, less-zoom, lens. On maximum aperture and 250+mm, it does seem to get unreasonably soft/unsharp, though. As a consequence of my low-intensity use I also cannot judge its durability. In my hands it simply doesn't get dirty or worn. Anybody looking for a first telezoom (in my case probably my last for a while), seriously consider this one. For the money it will not disappoint you.

Customer Service

none needed

Similar Products Used:

none in the telezoom range

Value for money Build Light weight and compact (relatively)

Noisy and slow AF AF hunting

I guess my experience with this lens is pretty similar to a lot of people gathering by the reviews. I bought this zoom based on a price–quality trade off and I am generally pleased with it. It was inexpensive and not bad build and optics. Yes the results are not as contrasty as they could but they are still okay. Yes, the AF is noisy but the build quality is okay. I find it is most useful for portraits and other people shots where a bit of softness is not such a problem. The macro facility, however, is a waste of time. I primarily use this lens with a Nikon F60/N60 and this is not a good combination for AF. It frequently hunts and chews up a lot of battery power winding in and out. I often find it easy to switch the AF off and go manual. The AF does seem to work a little better on my F80/N80. Overall, a cheap, light, and useful zoom for travel and general consumer photography.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 70-210

Pretty tight plastic construction; wide range; has macro capability; tad bit faster than some others in this price range. Light, quite compact and handles well.

My sample has poor optical performance overall; AF does not work well on my 7e. Focus does not quite reach infinity on mine, in either mode! These defects could be owing to sample-to-sample variation characteristic of inexpensive lenses.

I'm not sure if I have the "2000 version" of this lens or not. I've always used primes, but wanted to see if I could find a cheap lightweight tele-zoom to play around with. The first thing I did was to walk into the nearest Ritz Camera and buy a Quantaray 100-300 4.5-6.7 (see my review), for $149. The thing was cheaply constructed and rattly, but it focussed surprisingly well on an EOS 7e, and was wonderfully compact and lightweight. I was surprised by the results: not tack sharp (hand-held) but very pleasing in rendition. Then I thought I'd try the Tamron 70-300 for about the same price. The construction quality of this lens was considerably better, it was half a stop faster, and the weight and size were only a little greater than the Quantaray. My guess is that the Tamron simply tries to accomplish too much for such a low price (the wide zoom range plus macro)- hideous pincushion distortion at 70mm; muddy/low contrast at all settings; terrible AF response (easier to focus manually). Though they are not exactly the same thing, the Quantaray wins, for my purposes.

Similar Products Used:

mostly high-quality primes. I want a lightweight, compact zoom telephoto for casual photography, and only the cheap, slow ones seem to have these characteristics. If anyone made a nice AF prime of about 200 mm, f4.5 or so, incorporating plastics to reduce the weight, I would probably buy that instead, but the nearest I find is the canon 200 mm f2.8L, at 1.68 pounds. The action of Father Time is making it harder for me to carry around heavy gear.

Zoom range Sharp Good contrast Light weight Smooth operations

Flare can be very ugly Slow AF Small aperture Hood can be difficult to put on

This lens performed beyond my expectation! I bought this lens as an inexpensive autofocus zoom for casual situations where I need AF. It is very sharp and contrasty but I don't really know whether it is true for the whole zoom range or not as I did not look at the focal length when I took pictures. I had a Tamron 28-200 before and found that at 200 really gave soft pictures. It matches my Pentax ZX-5n and handling was very good. I have not experienced any zoom creep yet. Aperture was smooth. However, the lens hood can be difficult to put on or remove. Flare can be a serious problem. When it happens, it is very ugly. None of my Pentax lenses or the Sigma 135-400 APO ever did that. Flare simply appeared as a blob. Other lenses, at worst, gave a series of images of the aperture, which may appear artistic. It is a great lens for casual situations and, under proper use, can compete quite well with more expensive ones. The price, new or used, makes it a steal. I would recommend it to anyone looking for something inexpensive but has decent optical performance under some restricted conditions.

Similar Products Used:

Pentax SMC-A 70-210 f/4.0 (excellent but MF) Pentax FA 100 f/3.5 macro (excellent but fixed FL) Sigma 135-400 APO (Excellent but too heavy for casual use) Tamron 28-200 MF (OK but convenient zoom r

see above

for the price...one

Well, all the-called "pros" who have only negative comments about this lens, or any other "CONSUMER" lens should reevalute thier "pro" status as any professional would recognize this as a consumer grade lens and not a prime! OK now with that said.. I shoot for the USAF and use many different lens, both primes and consumer grade. This lens is an excellent value, it performs far above its MSRP of $219.00 and if you get a deal like I did then it is a stellar performer! Yes it is a tad slow(not SM)on the AF in low light, but it is sharp and is contrasty. The macro mode is only a 1:2 ratio (1/2 life size on a 35mm frame) but is a handy feature to have incorporated into a lens of this range. The build quality is at or above my expectations and is light and reliable. I find that the lens is actually sharper than my Canon 75-300mm USM(non L)! I shoot it on a EOS 10D body and it has full functionality with the factory chip. A great value for anyone who wants a light inexpensive lens.

Customer Service

no need as of this review

Similar Products Used:

sigma 70-300mm APO...very similar Canon 75-300mm USM...less sharp then the Tamron

Not too heavy. Great results.

None really

I recently purchased this Tamron lense for my older Canon Eos 750. The camera came with the 35-70 Canon AF which is a very good lense in itself. So this is my first real Zoom AF lense.I took it down south with me on my recent vacation and while sitting in a canoe in the everglades; handheld, and with no tripod, at 300 I just shot away a few rolls of film of the birds and gators. what i got back from the lab was incredible.Every shot came out absolutely sharp and without any flaring at all. I also used a uv filter.I won't be using my 35-70 any more. It does search a little, but i had no problems at all. it just takes a little patience.

Customer Service

None needed

Similar Products Used:

35-70AF Canon

:: not too heavy :: black rubber grip is comfortable :: macro capability

:: LOUD :: hunts a lot in low light, but so do lots of other lenses :: my particular one grates a little on the lens mount, lucky it is metal and not plastic...

This lens is OK for beginners who need a reasonable tele length for youth sports and large animals etc. Construction is fair when compared to comparable Minolta 75-300 model. What i found most annoying was the VERY loud noise when focusing, people asking "what is that noise coming from your camera?". This could be remedied by some manual focus work but if it's AF then you should be able to use it. Lens hood is a good inclusion and covers flare for nearly all situations. The Macro (1:2) capability increases the usefulness of this lens, got some shots of plants and close-ups that otherwise would not have been possible.

Customer Service

Not needed

Similar Products Used:

Minolta 75-300mm