Q: Tamron 70-300 1:4-5.6 LD

Nikolai

As all of you predicted - it started... (spending, I mean:-)

I may have a chance to get this guy well under the market price.
Can somebody comment on its quality/performance?
Also - what could be a fair price? Person is a colleague, I don't want to rip him off, but I don't wanna pay extra, too..

TIA!:thumb

ziggy53

Nik,


I have the very similar Tamron 75-300. If I understand the story correctly, the 70-300 is simply a "tweaked" 75-300, providing two benefits:

1) A better macro mode with an actual macro "switch" that moves elements internally to provide much closer focussing and a better macro ratio of 1:2 (versus 1:3.9 on the lens I have).
2) slightly wider at 70mm on the wide end (versus 75mm on the other).

The two lenses are still being sold as new and the 70-300 is about $40 USD more.

I really like the lens and the zoom range is nearly perfect for high school football, which will be my primary use for it. The range of 75-200mm seems very sharp, and then things soften a bit from 200-300mm. It's still not bad and software sharpening is very effective.

I suspect the lens will suffer some from "light flare", so I don't intend to shoot too much towards light sources.

It is a little slow to focus, but if you can pre-focus on something at a similar range, you can save some time during the actual shot. I was hitting around 80% during fast action stuff and around 95% during huddles and set. That was better than last season with a Minolta A2, which has a shorter zoom, but a longer zoom range.

PBase has many examples of both lenses:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamron

The 70-300 is more popular and I think the better macro mode is worth the small premium in price.

I haven't researched used prices for the 70-300, so hopefully someone else has an idea.

ziggy53

Khaos

In reality though, that's not Macro. I had the 28-75 and while it's a good lens, it annoyed me by saying it was macro. 1:1 is macro. The closest lens I had to macro but not macro was the 35L which even though it was wide made it great for flower shots.

Nikolai

Thanks, ziggy!
I guess it takes some time to play...:-)
Appreciate the info!

Cheers!

Nikolai

Well, it seems to work half way

Khaos wrote:

In reality though, that's not Macro. I had the 28-75 and while it's a good lens, it annoyed me by saying it was macro. 1:1 is macro. The closest lens I had to macro but not macro was the 35L which even though it was wide made it great for flower shots.

For the price I would not even expect more:-)
Cheers!

ziggy53

Khaos wrote:

In reality though, that's not Macro. ... 1:1 is macro. ...

Khaos,

You're right, they should call it a "near" macro or a "marketing" macro or some such.

Remember that this is a full frame lens, so the 1:2 magnification is for full frame. On an 8 megapixel APS-C imager, with a crop factor of 1.6, it's getting closer to a "true" macro. If I use software to crop a 5 megapixel portion from the frame, I am pushing the "true" macro definition, and there's a lot I can do with 5 megapixels.

Anyway, you are quite right that the term "macro" is abused and overused.

Thanks for the observation,

ziggy53