Worth a bid?

[skyblueads]

Been looking at this on the 'bay, worth a punt as a stop gap until I can afford better?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/TAMRON-Canon-fit-200-400mm-f-5-6-LD-Zoom-Lens-w-Hood_W0QQitemZ320284425413QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item320284425413&_trkparms=72%3A1089|39%3A1|66%3A2|65%3A12&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14.l1318

 

[Canon Bob]

Just popped over to photonet to see what's been written

I owned a Tamron 200-400. It was one of the worst lenses I've ever owned. It could not produce a sharp image no matter what you did with it. Perhaps I got hold of a bad copy, but most other reviews I've read complain about the same.

No personal experience though.

Bob

 

[skyblueads]

Ah, OK. Thanks mate, I'll not bother then.

 

[Canon Bob]

The thing that jumped out at me was the weight stated in the spec...325grams. It has to be plastic to get a 200-400 zoom down to this weight (unless it's stated incorrectly).

Bob

 

[skyblueads]

Good point, it's not easy being a newbie, I didn't even consider the weight.

 

[kevshore]

Good point, it's not easy being a newbie, I didn't even consider the weight.

Try handholding my 200-400mm for a while and you soon will.

 

[markta]

The thing that jumped out at me was the weight stated in the spec...325grams. It has to be plastic to get a 200-400 zoom down to this weight (unless it's stated incorrectly).

Bob

I reckon either a 1 or 2 is missing off the front of the grammage..

From what I've heard and read, all of Tamron's long zooms are poor at fast auto focusing. Their best piece of glass is undoubtedly the 90mm macro lens