Tamron SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD

J H Foto

J H Foto

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,414
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
Anyone used this lens.....?
 
Yep loved it tried it along side a nikon 70-300mm vr in store and walked away with the tamron.Build quality is very good as is the VC.Highly recommended for a budget zoom.
 
All the reviews rate this lens better than the Nikon or Sigma.
 
Yes, for the price point it's excellent - (mine was £200 used).
 
I have one, it is a great lens, VC is superb and you get a 5 year guarantee if buying new.
 
Has excellent IQ throughout the range, fast and accurate AF in good light, very good VC. A great lens for a moderate outlay.
 
Mine is arriving today and I'm off to shoot an event with it straight after, so will let you know this evening. It seemed to come out on top of the pile in all the reviews/comparisons I read so was an easy choice for me.
 
Excellent lens most value in terms of bang for bucks. Recommended.
 
I got one for a bargain price and have tried it directly up against my Nikon 70-300mm VR. Results are very impressive and virtually indistinguishable between the 2. I had to nearly go to 200% crop to find any difference and even then it was minimal (results swinging both ways).
Where the Tamron excels though is with the VC, it is, IMHO better than the Nikons VR.
For the cost cost difference I see no reason to go for the nikon against the Tamron other than resale values but if it's for keeps then what does that matter, save your money and get the Tamron, it's outstanding value for money.
 
I've reviewed the Tamron 70-300 VC a few times for the magazines I write for, and it always wins.

The Nikon 70-300 VC is the best lens in this class, being particularly strong at the long end, but the Tamron runs it very close, is well built, and much cheaper. The other outstanding tele-zoom is the Canon 55-250 STM, a little gem of a lens, quite different to the non-STM version. I've never been very impressed with the Canon 70-300 IS, AF is not so good and it doesn't measure up at 300mm. On the other hand, the much more expensive Canon 70-300 L is fabulous :)
 
The tamron is a very decent lens for the money and overall probably the best vale for money in this focal length. I have just put my Nikon mount version up for sale because I am upgrading to the 70-200 f/2.8
 
I've used it before I could afford my 70-200 f2.8. Love the VC, it just grabs hold of the subject and clings on for dear life!

I don't think the Nikon version is worth the extra. If you don't need the fixed f/2.8 aperture then I'd definitely recommend this lens.
 
ukaskew said:
Mine is arriving today and I'm off to shoot an event with it straight after, so will let you know this evening. It seemed to come out on top of the pile in all the reviews/comparisons I read so was an easy choice for me.
Click to expand...

Scrub this, delivery delayed, gutted!
 
Performance the Tamron is very good, Zoom barrel was a little stiff and you can hear it whirring away when the VC kicks in also not the smallest of lenses but the same size as the Canon 70-300mm. Personally I would recommend the Canon 55-250mm STM for around the same price, Super sharp, quite and light to lug around, also not as big.
 
Thanks for all the information, mine arrives Monday.................:cool:
 
J H Foto said:
Thanks for all the information, mine arrives Monday.................:cool:
Click to expand...
Did your lens arrive and have you had a chance to use it yet ? Only asking because I have been following this thread looking for info myself.
 
Yes it arrived today, not had chance to test it yet because of bad weather but I am going to a nature reserve in the morning. What I can say so far is it looks and feels like a more expensive lens, it is quality.
 
Mine arrived yesterday, really nice solid lens, build quality feels miles ahead of some of the cheap 70-300s I've used in the past.

The VC really is rock solid, scarily so!
 
ukaskew said:
Mine arrived yesterday, really nice solid lens, build quality feels miles ahead of some of the cheap 70-300s I've used in the past.

The VC really is rock solid, scarily so!
Click to expand...

Any early feedback or photos to post ?

A couple of us have noted that some things don't seem right with copy that Jeff has posted.
 
Barso said:
Any early feedback or photos to post ?

A couple of us have noted that some things don't seem right with copy that Jeff has posted.
Click to expand...

You need to know what has happened to the jpeg or RAW file after it came out of the camera first and also the camera settings used.

(at least), the above images look significantly over sharpened producing noise - in addition the white are very over blown in the Great Tit image

Can you post this information Jeff
 
Last edited:
Be interesting to know also if a distortion - sorry UV filter was being used?
 
minnnt said:
Just a little tip, try under exposing with this lens by 0.7 - 1 stop. It does have a tendency to over expose.
Click to expand...

Not in my experience - exposure is spot on. Guess it depends on the individual lens you have.
 
camera will often try and meter for the sky if your shooting at trees
 
Barso said:
Any early feedback or photos to post ?
Click to expand...

Rough and ready as I have no events for a week or two yet, but here you go...

Both wide open, very basic default corrections from the lens profile for the Tamron 70-300 in Lightroom, not even sure if it's the right model (originals linked below), the second one is a crop of less than 25% of the original image, 200mm wide open at 1/160 in fading light...

i-xt35fMH-L.jpg

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/i-xt35fMH/0/O/i-xt35fMH.jpg

i-wxQGhfM-M.jpg

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/i-wxQGhfM/0/O/i-wxQGhfM.jpg

Wasn't expecting much having owned a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR and Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 in the past, but it's exceeded my expectations, AF is very quick and snappy, which was the main thing for me.
 
Last edited:
Jeff - looks like there's nothing wrong with the lens per se, you just need to post the settings for the images that you took and what PP you did?
 
ukaskew said:
Rough and ready as I have no events for a week or two yet, but here you go...

Both wide open, very basic default corrections from the lens profile for the Tamron 70-300 in Lightroom, not even sure if it's the right model (originals linked below), the second one is a crop of less than 25% of the original image, 200mm wide open at 1/160 in fading light...

i-xt35fMH-L.jpg

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/i-xt35fMH/0/O/i-xt35fMH.jpg

i-wxQGhfM-M.jpg

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/i-wxQGhfM/0/O/i-wxQGhfM.jpg

Wasn't expecting much having owned a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR and Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 in the past, but it's exceeded my expectations, AF is very quick and snappy, which was the main thing for me.
Click to expand...

These are the type of images I was more or less expecting from this lens.......thanks for the reply. The background or bokeh in Jeff's photos was distracting to say the least, these appear to be a lot calmer.
 
Never really bothered with this sort of thing, but was sat in the garden with my kit today and wondered how the 'bokeh' would hold up. Focus is on the tip of the leaf nearest the centre. Interestingly the most surprising thing about this is how rock solid the VC is on the Tamron, swapping over to the 135 felt incredibly shaky, not something that's ever bothered me before.

Shot in RAW, saved as JPEG in Lightroom with no edits/presets/processing. The Tamron is good, but the 135mm at f4.5 is on another level when you view the full size image.

Tamron 70-300mm at 135mm wide open (f4.5)
i-XBjnrTm-L.jpg

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/i-XBjnrTm/0/O/i-XBjnrTm.jpg

Canon 135mm f2 at f4.5
i-CHn2FB3-L.jpg

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/i-CHn2FB3/0/O/i-CHn2FB3.jpg

and just for fun...

Canon 135mm f2 at f2
i-T9bxSF6-L.jpg

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/i-T9bxSF6/0/O/i-T9bxSF6.jpg
 
Last edited:
ukaskew said:
Never really bothered with this sort of thing, but was sat in the garden with my kit today and wondered how the 'bokeh' would hold up. Focus is on the tip of the leaf nearest the centre. Interestingly the most surprising thing about this is how rock solid the VC is on the Tamron, swapping over to the 135 felt incredibly shaky, not something that's ever bothered me before.

Shot in RAW, saved as JPEG in Lightroom with no edits/presets/processing. The Tamron is good, but the 135mm at f4.5 is on another level when you view the full size image.

Tamron 70-300mm at 135mm wide open (f4.5)
i-XBjnrTm-L.jpg



http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/i-XBjnrTm/0/O/i-XBjnrTm.jpg

Canon 135mm f2 at f4.5
i-CHn2FB3-L.jpg

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/i-CHn2FB3/0/O/i-CHn2FB3.jpg

and just for fun...

Canon 135mm f2 at f2
i-T9bxSF6-L.jpg

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/i-T9bxSF6/0/O/i-T9bxSF6.jpg
Click to expand...

Nice from the f2. I would like to see a comparison between the cheap non-VC to this lens, just wondering if this is £200 better.
 
Gave my Tamron a proper workout today, bolted to a very cheap and very nasty Canon 1100D, pushed the AF very hard and it performed way, way beyond my expectations. Love this lens...


IMG_1104 by Harry_S, on Flickr


IMG_0981 by Harry_S, on Flickr


IMG_0659 by Harry_S, on Flickr
 
ukaskew said:
Gave my Tamron a proper workout today, bolted to a very cheap and very nasty Canon 1100D, pushed the AF very hard and it performed way, way beyond my expectations. Love this lens...


IMG_1104 by Harry_S, on Flickr


IMG_0981 by Harry_S, on Flickr


IMG_0659 by Harry_S, on Flickr
Click to expand...
There would be no complaints from me if that was my lens, and all from an 1100D.....not forgetting the person that took them either.
 
Sweet Chris (y)

Just a thought if you're into motorsport, a polarising filter will cut through windscreen reflections at that kind of angle (eg GTR, first shot) so you can see the driver - when the angle of the windscreen is between 30-40 degrees, Brewster's Angle. Suggest a Hoya HD particularly for this, as it reduces the light loss by half a stop or so, helping to keep shutter speeds up.

The GTR has one stiff chassis, picking up the inside-front like that!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top