Amazing for the money KIT lens for travel

Sometimes SLT LA-EA4 mount must be reset to get it to work?

Simply AMAZING High quality resolution & Contrast & Color possible with the use of this lens on a Sony A7r mirrorless full frame camera. You MUST have the Sony SLT LA-EA4 optical unit adapter A > Emt. lens test was Done for Model A06, look at the bottom of your lens! Most reviews at the time this lens came out were bad, I believe its the Sony SLT optical path that improved this lenses focus ability! I did a lens test with my professional Digital image flow LLC, resolution chart at 50mm/7 for a Zeiss loxia Vs. Tamron XR 28-300@F:7. Tripod-ed, same size ratio, its was almost impossible to tell the difference? What? My Zeiss Loxia 50/2 cost $1K. The Tamron 28-300mm you can buy on eBay for $65.00 Make sure its says model A06 on the bottom! This Tamron travel KIT lens 28-300 XR is a sleeper in the Photography world because it wasn't used correctly or the Sony optical SLT unit improved it? Mounting securely on the LA-EA4 it's strong for a plastic mount, and the weight ratios are acceptable. Regards, Don

Similar Products Used:

Sigma, Quantaray, Promaster,

Compact
reasonably light
good optics and with a tripod and higher f stops, good -v. good photos
wide range, good as a single lens
works well for scenery, wildlife, etc.

Construction, glued in parts are not appreciated in lens costing $300-400.
for high quality to professional photos may not satisfy many needs
f stop adjustment ring could be improved

When I bought this lens a number of years ago the reviews rated this as a very good lens. The 28-300mm was appealing as an AF lens for my Nikon since it was reported to have good optics. It was appealing for those trips where weight was important and I couldnt take my camera bag with all my lenses. Covering a wide range was appealing as well in cases where I wanted to carry only one lens. This was to become a primary lens over my manual Sigma 70-300mm lens which had produced outstanding photos under a wide range of conditions and film types with my Nikon. Though this lense has served me, (used on Nikon FM2, F3, N90, N6006) well the optics are good but not as good as the Sigma or some of my Nikon lenses. Recently this lens was used taking National Park photos with a tripod. This lens has always been difficult to adjust the f stop especially when camera is tripod mounted and this time resulted in the lens being unmounted and falling about 3 feet to the ground. The small rear lens element snapped off. Though damage would be expected when dropping a lens - Closer inspectionm showed that this element is epoxied in with a few dabs of cement! - this would be expected of a much cheaper lens and was a surprise. Repair costs by Tamron is $140.00 I opted for repairing it myself - using epoxy cement and this lens will ow be a backup. It was replaced with a Sigma 70-300 AF lens. Though this was an OK lens I would NOT recommend it even though it can now be found on ebay for $179.00 new. There are much better and sturdier lens such as Sigma and the better line of Nikon lens.
This might mean a 70-300mm lens and then carrying a 2nd lens for less than 70mm. Hopefully the newer Tamron models are constructed much better and the optics are better.

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 70-300 mm APO lens (manual) with Nikon
Nikon DX 55-200mm 4.5-6 ED with Nikon
Several similar Canon zooms with Canon System

Versitility

Soft at ends Soft wide open Expensive for it bad quality Plastic mounts Telescoping lens sucks in dust

I should have read the review here before purchasing this lens. I did notice it was very soft on both ends, and is almost useless when its wideopen. I noticed it even more when I moved from a film SLR to a digial SLR because of the multiplier. I originally bought it because I figure the range allowed me to carry two lens with me. Another flaw in the design is the lens mount, it is made of cheap plastic. Recently my camera bag had drop out of my carfloor and onto the floor of a parking lot (2 feet at most). The camera bag was cushion pretty well, but after using it for a few more time, the lens fell off of the camera! I found out that the drop might have stressed and cracked the plastic lens mount. They definitly had to put a metal mount on it. Anyways I was glad in a way this happen because that lens was way over due to get replaced and it gave me an excuse to purchase a better lens. This lens would be worth the price if I have paid under $150. If you think you might want to purchase this lens, make sure you rent it out before purchasing because it is definitly not worth its price.

None, when compared to Sigma macro of same focal length

Very soft at 300mm. Plastic mount. Costs more than Sigma 28-300.

This lens is very soft at 300mm, even with the digital 1.6x crop factor. Wide open, pictures can be painful to look at. There is radial "smearing" of bright features (i.e. coma), out-of-focus areas (not just bright points) are distinctly unpleasant, and pictures are overall hazy. This is often noticeable even on small picture sizes. Things were so bad I first thought the lens was misfocusing, but it's not. I had to stop this lens down to at least f10, preferably f13 for sharpness. At these apertures, pictures were pretty good, but you're really throwing away a lot of incoming light. Shorter focal lengths (below 200) were OK wide open, but after trying this lens for a couple of weeks I returned it to the store. I might have kept it for its convenience if I hadn't tried the newest Sigma 28-300 macro lens. The difference is day and night - the Sigma lens is quite sharp even at 300mm and even in corners. Astonishingly at 300mm it is better wide open than the Tamron stopped down to f10. The Sigma lens is also $100 cheaper and has a metal mount, whereas the Tamron has a cheap-looking plastic mount that I was afraid would eventually warp or crack. Perhaps I got a bad copy of this lens, as there are others who liked it. But even though Tamron throws the alphabet soup at this lens (mine was labeled as XR, LD, and Di) the Sigma beat it hands down in every possible way: optics, build, price.

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 28-300.

Flexibility when only one lens will do, like backpacking.

Everything else: 1) Unsuitable for digital SLR (dSLR) use; 2) Poor autofocus performance, especially in the evening; 3) Not Suitable for manual focus use, as the focus ring is thin, stiff and awkward.

After owning two Tamron 28-200's and a 28-300, I can say I was VERY disappointed with the 28-300. In fact, at ~200mm the focus was actually softer on one side of the image than the other, first leading me to think the CCD in my S1 Pro was out of alignment. [However, when I changed to a borrowed Nikon 70-300 the problem vanished, obviously pointing to the lens.] I bought this lens because I was reasonably satisfied with my 28-200... And boy, was it a mistake! The autofocus was MUCH slower than the shorter lens; and the image sharpness with a Fuji S1 Pro was Unacceptable. Even on a film camera (with the full 24x36mm frame size)the images were noticeably softer than it's smaller 28-200 siblings.

Customer Service

Very Rude at the 2002 PhotoPlus Expo in NYC

Similar Products Used:

Two Tamron 28-200's; other assorted zoom lenses.

Versatility of 28-300mm range, light weight, respectably high quality, outstanding value for money, the perfect travel lens.

Not as sharp as primes or more expensive zooms, but you get what you pay for.

Please note that this is a review for the newer model Tamron 28-300mm XR lens (A06). When I bought my Canon EOS 300 (Rebel 2000) I wrestled with whether to go for 2 separate Canon zoom lenses or a single off brand super zoom that did it all. After much deliberation I ended up getting the Canon 28-80mm and 75-300mm USM zoom lenses. One of my main priorities was to keep the camera as light as possible for travelling and the Tamron 28-300mm felt like it weighed a tonne on the front of my very light EOS 300 (the camera was completely unbalanced). Having used this Canon combination for a year or so, however, I came to resent having to change my lenses all the time. I also missed a number of great shots because I couldn't change to the appropriate lens in time. When the new Tamron 28-300mm XR lens came out with a 28% weight reduction over the old model I knew my prayers had been answered. I sold off my Canon lenses, snapped up one of the new Tamrons, and quite honestly couldn't be happier. After also adding a BP200 battery pack to my EOS 300, the balance is just about perfect and the combination looks amazing (very professional!) to boot, while still retaining the low weight qualities that are so important to me. Let's get things into perspective, though. This is no pro lens, so comparisions to a mega-buck lens like the Canon 35-350mm are pretty futile in my opinion - we have to compare apples with apples. For my particular requirements, this lens does all I want and more. I rarely print larger than 6" x 4" and at this size resolution is just fine. If you're after pro level quality and/or blow up your prints to larger sizes, then I would suggest you look elsewhere for your lens. For the money, though, I really don't think you can go past this lens for quality (it is my opinion that Tamron is one of the better 'off brand' manufacturers) or versatility. If light weight travel photography is your goal and changing lenses has been the bane of your life, this is the lens for you! My rating for this lens is based on these comments and on how it compares to other lenses AT THIS PRICE LEVEL. Very highly recommended!

Customer Service

Not needed.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 28-80mm, Canon 75-300mm USM.

Versatility - nice not having to piss about changing lenses in a dusty environment.

Takes too long to focus. Zoom ring is bodgy. Pictures come out average

Lens is very versatile, but disappointing in terms of quality. It takes too long to lock on, and the resulting pic is less than satisfactory, ESPECIALLY when you are between the 200-300mm range. It seems fine mid-range.

Sharpness Zoom Range Minimal weight

Zoom ring stiff after 50mm

Great overall lens. This is my first non-Pentax lens and I could not be happier. Pentax lenses are fine, but my pictures have never been sharper then with the Tamron. This type of quality is what is keeping me from getting too involved with digital photography.

Customer Service

Not Needed

Similar Products Used:

Pentax 80-320

range 28-300

Everything: bad contrast, slow and loud autofocus, distortion, lack of sharpness, heavy and bulky, bad ergonomics

I don''t know where to even start. This lens is absolutely terrible! I guess you get good range for the price, but if you are using 35mm with decent film, the images are so bad. Contrast is terrible with this lens. It looks like the photos you take are through a thick glass window. The zoom ring is hard to run and it causes your hand to cramp up. Focus is slow and noisey, even on a Nikon F100. Images at all ranges and apertures (yes I tried them all) even shot on a stable tripod have a blurry quality to them. (I''d say the lack of sharpness for this lens suites itself to the APS format) There is massive barrel distortion at 28mm, making this lens completely unsuitable for architectural photography. (Can you say european travel vacation?) All this bad things are compounded by the fact that this lens is bulky and heavy. Now I dont mind bulky and heavy if you get good quality (like fast Nikon lenses). Basically, this lens doesn''t do anything well at all. Its only feature is its wide focal range.

Similar Products Used:

None

flexibility - range

zoom ring tightness super soft images barrel distortion slow

If you are going to be using this lens for anything other than casual pictures, you will be very disappointed. This lens is not sharp (as some reviews claim). It will not resolve any detail - even at 100mm. Barrel distortion is absolutely terrible at 28mm - this taking into account that I''m using a D1X with the 1.6x. Largest aperture at 200mm is 6. The zoom ring gets too tight between the 50-200mm ranges - enough to cause strain in hands.

Similar Products Used:

None