sony or tamron 70-300

F

fish

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Name
james
Edit My Images
No
Sorry ladies and gents, I know there is a Sony alpha thread but i have looked through it and searched it for the answer to this question and have come up with no answer.

As Jessops has the winter sale on at the moment for the 70-300 for £100, and sony have the cash back offer on to get the 70-300 for £125, which is the better lens and better value for money? Are either any good or is it better to get a second hand minolta 100-300 or 70-300 off the bay? I just wanted to add a little range to my camera and the G lenses from sony seem a little out of reach for me at this moment in time.

Many Thanks

Fish
 
fish said:
Sorry ladies and gents, I know there is a Sony alpha thread but i have looked through it and searched it for the answer to this question and have come up with no answer.

As Jessops has the winter sale on at the moment for the 70-300 for £100, and sony have the cash back offer on to get the 70-300 for £125, which is the better lens and better value for money? Are either any good or is it better to get a second hand minolta 100-300 or 70-300 off the bay? I just wanted to add a little range to my camera and the G lenses from sony seem a little out of reach for me at this moment in time.

Many Thanks

Fish
Click to expand...

hi fish,and welcome to TP

either of the above will give you decent enough images,but the general concensus seems to be that the tamron is better value for money.i used to have the sony version,and was happy with it,but i eventually upgraded to the G lens.here's a few shots i took with the sony 70-300...

DSC00157.jpg


manxnorton_filtered.jpg


also the minolta seems to be a highly regarded lens,although i've no experience of them.if you think 200mm of reach would be enough,then you might want to consider the "beercan" lens...a 70-210 F/4.for info regarding sony/minolta lens,look here...

http://www.dyxum.com/

a great resource for all things alpha/minolta :thumbs:

hope this helps....
 
Thanks for the quick reply. I have been following a few of the beercan lenses on ebay and they seem to go for around the same as a new version of one of the above lenses. I dont know alot about optics and didnt know if the quality of the beercan was better or the same as the 70-300. i will have a look through dyxum now thanks for the lnk
 
Firstly when talking about Sony branded lenses do not confuse the 70-300 G with the 75-300. The former typically retails around £500, the latter under £150 and there is a marked difference in the quality of the resulting images.

The "beercan" has a well deserved reputation for punching well above its price and is worth considering at the cheap end of the price range. I only sold mine as I bought a 70-200 SSM.
 
ooops my bad..i thought fish meant the 75-300,which is what i was reffering too...the 70-300 G SSM is an entirely different beast.the "beercan"...as onomatopoeia has stated..punches well above its price point at the cheaper end,and would be my personal choice in the 70-200[210] range,however...if you need the reach of the 300's,then it may be worth looking at the minolta 100-300..
 
Thanks for the replies, i did mean the 75-300 stan not 70-300. I will look round for the 100-300 also.
 
Hi gents i have recently been looking at the tamron and sony lens on dyxum, however to throw a curve ball in i have seen the mk2 version of the minolta 75-300 (not big beercan) for a very reasonable price. How would this compare, i would asume this is the lens the sony unit is based upon?
 
collins82002 said:
Just wanna say brought the sony 75-300mm today for £179 with a £50 cashback, have had a few snaps with it and seems pretty good.
Click to expand...


good good,

I have the tamron 70-300, finding it not too bad :thumbs: (softness issue now solved :) )
 
opps,iv got the sony 75-300 and think its great,never had a bad photo from it,maybe from the camera settings i had it on,but not down to the lens!!:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top