Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 54

Thread: Tamron Lenses

  1. #1
    lizzy310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    170
    Real Name
    Liz

    Tamron Lenses

    Has anyone used the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD for Canon? I am wanting to get lenses for the 60 D Cannon and am looking at all my options. This one seems to have lots of good customer reviews, so I want to see if anyone on here has used it.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Panama City, FL
    Posts
    3,542
    Real Name
    Chris

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    I have the 70-300 macro zoom for Nikon and while it is not a bad lens at certain focal lengths, it isn't the sharpest it should be at any focal length. I find if you stay in the f:8 to 11 range and keep a higher shutter speed, it does pretty okay. I know the Canon lens is substantially more expensive, but you really do get what you pay for when it comes to lenses. I am now the proud owner of a 55-300 Nikkor and it shoots circles around the Tamron.

    The surfing image I recently entered into the new monochrome mini comp was shot with the 55-300 and the surfer was at least 150 yards out, perhaps closer to 200. Another one shot with that lens is the pincushion flower in the color mini comp. To its credit, the wind was a bit stiff, but I was able to get a high shutter speed to combo with a low aperture for quite reasonable results.

  3. #3
    Sam Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arlington,TX
    Posts
    382
    Real Name
    Sam Smith, I have photo ID

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    I have just rented L series lens for the weekend and it is true that you get what you pay for with lens. I saw a difference in the sharpness. They were not in the focal length of the 70-300, one was the 70-200 f2.8 but the difference was great. IMO get the Canon lens if you can. Before this weekend I was considering just buying consumer grade of glass but I am now converted.

  4. #4
    shreds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,318
    Real Name
    Ian

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    Years ago I had a Sigma 70-300, but found after getting the Nikon 70-200 (at somewhat more pennies!) there really was no contest. Got to agree with Sam.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Western MA, USA
    Posts
    389
    Real Name
    Tom

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by MiniChris View Post
    I am now the proud owner of a 55-300 Nikkor and it shoots circles around the Tamron.
    I don't doubt your experience, but it is worth noting that it is at odds with virtually every formal review that has been done of these lenses. I think this highlights an important point -- there is significant sample variation in lenses, and one person can get a terrific copy of a middling lens, while another person can get a middling copy of a terrific lens, and they would both find the middling lens to be superior to the lens that most tests have found to be the better optics.

  6. #6
    arith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Burton on Trent, UK
    Posts
    4,789
    Real Name
    Steve

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    I've got a Tamron 17-50mm VC. The VC works fantastic and I can get way over 4 stops stabilisation, the AF is crap though. Also you need to know all the numbers; those parameters that give equivalent quality to the top lens.

    However; I also have a Canon L, and I don't have to remember a thing, can choose any aperture at any focal length for theoretical best image quality. It is a doddle to use and AF is quiet and quick.

    Get a Tamron only if you can't afford a Canon.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    South Devon, UK
    Posts
    11,615

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    What is your budget, Liz?

    That Tamron lens seems to get reasonable reviews although I haven't personally used one. but I do have the Canon 70-300 IS (the older non L version) and it is a good piece of kit for the money. The Sigma 70-300 also gets good reports.

    However, I recently purchased a Canon 70-200 L IS (only the cheaper F4 version) and, as others have mentioned, there is a great difference in quality with L lenses. Unfortunately there is also a considerable difference in price.

    A friend purchased the new Canon 70-300 L IS lens and finds it to be excellent, but even more expensive.

  8. #8
    lizzy310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    170
    Real Name
    Liz

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    I'm fortunate that I have a lump sum payment on a trust every year...not huge, but it gives me a pretty good budget. I am going to be able to buy the camera body, a telephoto zoom, a regular lens, and possibly a macro lense. However, I do want to get the best value for my money. I am an amateur in all this. How far can you shoot well with the 70-200 compared to the 300? The whole reason I want to go from the Cannon G10 which has been a great point and shoot camera, to a better one is to get the far away shots. My husband and I travel all over the world and I am keenly aware with every photo and every trip that I am not happy with far away shooting. It's possibly that a 200 would be a good one to start with instead of the 300 and I am open to used. There are good buys on Amazon for used like new. Someone recommened a 400, but that may be too much for a beginner. Looking at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM UD and have read lots of reviews. I like that it is light weight. I have some disability with walking and so the weight is important to me too. USM, ease of use, and weight...all important.
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff F View Post
    What is your budget, Liz?

    That Tamron lens seems to get reasonable reviews although I haven't personally used one. but I do have the Canon 70-300 IS (the older non L version) and it is a good piece of kit for the money. The Sigma 70-300 also gets good reports.

    However, I recently purchased a Canon 70-200 L IS (only the cheaper F4 version) and, as others have mentioned, there is a great difference in quality with L lenses. Unfortunately there is also a considerable difference in price.

    A friend purchased the new Canon 70-300 L IS lens and finds it to be excellent, but even more expensive.

  9. #9
    lizzy310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    170
    Real Name
    Liz

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    Thanks everyone for all the input. I have some time to really make my decisions, so I'm asking lots of questions.

  10. #10
    arith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Burton on Trent, UK
    Posts
    4,789
    Real Name
    Steve

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    Actually Liz; I would go with the 70-200mm f4 L plus a 1.4x converter. this gives top quality 70-280mm f4-f5.6 lens with AF.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Panama City, FL
    Posts
    3,542
    Real Name
    Chris

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    You might also want to give high consideration to Tokina's lenses. I have the Tokina 100mm macro and it is quite a superb lens.

  12. #12
    lizzy310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    170
    Real Name
    Liz

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    I am looking at close up things as well and so this 100mm lense is a close up one? I have taken close up pics with my little G10 point and shoot, and want to continue with that as I go to the next level.
    Quote Originally Posted by MiniChris View Post
    You might also want to give high consideration to Tokina's lenses. I have the Tokina 100mm macro and it is quite a superb lens.

  13. #13
    lizzy310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    170
    Real Name
    Liz

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    Forgive my ignorance, but the converter is just an attachment that goes on to the lens right? Is it cannon made? Can you attach it to the lens and leave it there or is it something you have to put together every time like Legos? Is it big and bulky and does it add lots of weight? There are so many things that I need to learn. We are going to the Philippines this Dec and I want to be ready with my new camera. Just looked it up and is this what you are talking about? Kenko 1.4X PRO 300 Teleconverter DGX for Canon
    Quote Originally Posted by arith View Post
    Actually Liz; I would go with the 70-200mm f4 L plus a 1.4x converter. this gives top quality 70-280mm f4-f5.6 lens with AF.

  14. #14
    shreds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,318
    Real Name
    Ian

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    Liz

    A converter is a small addition to any lens, the same diameter as the lens and usually about an inch or so in length, that sits between the camera body and the lens.

    You have to check cause not all lenses are capable of using a converter effectively as not all connections carry through.

    However they allow you to gain a bit extra 'focal length/distance' without shelling out for a much bigger lens, and of course you can take it off again, too. They do absorb a bit of light, so you need to allow about 1.5 stops for using something like this, (but that is less than using a polarising filter which usually take a couple of stops), so in effect your maximum aperture will be reduced to around a f5.6-f8 equivalent.

    You can get close up filters to go on the front of the lens but I dont think this is what Steve had in mind.

  15. #15
    lizzy310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    170
    Real Name
    Liz

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    Thanks Shreds... Going from G10 point and shoot to a Cannon D60 means I have to learn a lot. I'm thinking even if I only get one lens to start with, I am going to be very happy with the difference. Love my G10 for a point and shoot, but it never goes far enough. I wonder if I can add a converter to a basic lens to add distance... Donald recommended the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM as a really good all around lens. Wonder if a converter will work with that one? he also recommended the 24-70 but it doesn't have IS and I think I might need that. Sometimes have shaky hands...not too bad, but a bit. I appreciate the input so very much...thank you
    Quote Originally Posted by shreds View Post
    Liz

    A converter is a small addition to any lens, the same diameter as the lens and usually about an inch or so in length, that sits between the camera body and the lens.

    You have to check cause not all lenses are capable of using a converter effectively as not all connections carry through.

    However they allow you to gain a bit extra 'focal length/distance' without shelling out for a much bigger lens, and of course you can take it off again, too. They do absorb a bit of light, so you need to allow about 1.5 stops for using something like this, (but that is less than using a polarising filter which usually take a couple of stops), so in effect your maximum aperture will be reduced to around a f5.6-f8 equivalent.

    You can get close up filters to go on the front of the lens but I dont think this is what Steve had in mind.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    South Devon, UK
    Posts
    11,615

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    Spending other people's money is such fun.

    If you don't already have a converter, Liz, I would think twice before getting one in your current circumstances.

    As Ian said, not all lenses will work with converters, particularly Canon equipment. You do lose a little bit of light and some loss of sharpness although that shouldn't be too much of a problem with a Canon L lens and a 1.4x converter.

    They work with the Canon 70-200 range, the 100-400 and a few prime (fixed size) lenses but not with most Canon lenses. Some third party converters will work with other lenses but quality can be variable.

    However, a converter will add a bit of extra length and weight; and when you add together the price of lens plus converter there won't be a lot of difference between a 70-200 plus converter and the 70-300 L lens.

    Now macro. What exactly do you want to photograph? For flowers or larger/very approachable insects etc, a 100 mm lens will suffice but I would recommend going to 150 mm for any serious work on small insects. The Sigma 150 is a popular choice amongst entomologists.

    However, another option is an extension tube which fits between your lens and the camera and allows you to focus a little closer. This would work reasonably well with either of the suggested zooms for flowers/butterflies, etc. But I would recommend a proper macro lens for anything smaller.

    A 25 mm tube would work OK and cost a little over 100 (in the UK) however they are currently in short supply. A good tripod will also be necessary.

    Which just leaves a shorter lens. I use a Canon 24-105 L IS which suits me, although some people like something a little smaller. My friend with the 70-300 L also uses something around 15-85 mm approx (I forget the exact size) which is a Canon lens with IS but not an 'L' lens. However it seems to produce excellent results and is slightly cheaper.
    Last edited by Geoff F; 6th September 2011 at 06:39 PM.

  17. #17
    lizzy310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    170
    Real Name
    Liz

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    After reading so many opinions and reviews, I think I am going to start with the 24-105. After my G10 I think I will be blown away with the difference and can get a telephoto later. Does that get close for flowers and plants, or would I want to use a 25mm tube with it? Do you use a tube with yours? The 24-70 doesn't have IS, which I think would be wise for me. I have to "borrow" the money for the camera and lens from my hubby to buy it, since my money doesn't come in until Jan and we are going to the Philippines in Dec. So in essence I am spending someone elses money too! If I can get the 24-105 and whatever filters etc that I need, I will be a happy camper.
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff F View Post
    Spending other people's money is such fun.

    If you don't already have a converter, Liz, I would think twice before getting one in your current circumstances.

    As Ian said, not all lenses will work with converters, particularly Canon equipment. You do lose a little bit of light and some loss of sharpness although that shouldn't be too much of a problem with a Canon L lens and a 1.4x converter.

    They work with the Canon 70-200 range, the 100-400 and a few prime (fixed size) lenses but not with most Canon lenses. Some third party converters will work with other lenses but quality can be variable.

    However, a converter will add a bit of extra length and weight; and when you add together the price of lens plus converter there won't be a lot of difference between a 70-200 plus converter and the 70-300 L lens.

    Now macro. What exactly do you want to photograph? For flowers or larger/very approachable insects etc, a 100 mm lens will suffice but I would recommend going to 150 mm for any serious work on small insects. The Sigma 150 is a popular choice amongst entomologists.

    However, another option is an extension tube which fits between your lens and the camera and allows you to focus a little closer. This would work reasonably well with either of the suggested zooms for flowers/butterflies, etc. But I would recommend a proper macro lens for anything smaller.

    A 25 mm tube would work OK and cost a little over 100 (in the UK) however they are currently in short supply. A good tripod will also be necessary.

    Which just leaves a shorter lens. I use a Canon 24-105 L IS which suits me, although some people like something a little smaller. My friend with the 70-300 L also uses something around 15-85 mm approx (I forget the exact size) which is a Canon lens with IS but not an 'L' lens. However it seems to produce excellent results and is slightly cheaper.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    South Devon, UK
    Posts
    11,615

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    I've just checked my 24-105 lens and with a 25 mm tube I can focus down to 3 inches.

    Tubes do need a little bit of extra light but that isn't normally a problem, and autofocus can be a bit difficult in poor light; but most people prefer to manually focus for macro work anyway.

    You won't be able to focus at infinity when using a tube but that shouldn't be a problem either.
    Last edited by Geoff F; 6th September 2011 at 07:08 PM. Reason: spelling

  19. #19
    arith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Burton on Trent, UK
    Posts
    4,789
    Real Name
    Steve

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    The converter goes with the 70-200mm f4 L and doesn't really work elsewhere except f2.8 and I chose 1.4x since that works fine with no loss of resolution and AF. It is possible to go to 2x but AF doesn't work and it would be f8.

    The converter has to be Canon as well.

  20. #20
    Harpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lancaster, PA USA
    Posts
    425
    Real Name
    Mike

    Re: Tamron Lenses

    Liz, if you get a lump sum from your trust fund every year, then its not a biggie to get the 24-105 now and if you feel you still need more reach, you can always get a longer lens next year.

    What exactly are you looking to photograph from further away that you feel frustrated with right now? It could mean a difference between the 70-200 and 100-400.

    If for some reason you dont feel ready to go ahead with a purchase of another lens with the next years lump sum, feel free to send it my way, I could use more lenses!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •