Forum menu
I was thinking about getting a Nikon 70 - 300 zoom lens, but someone has mentioned the Tamron 70 - 300 is a better lens? Has anyone used either or both of these?
In what sense better?
Image quality
I've had couple of Tamron lenses. The fast 17-50 2.8 was awesome, but the slow cheaper superzoom was crap
IME if it's a cheapo, go with the Nikon
Wifey bought me a Nikon fit Tamron AF70-300 F/4-5.6 LD Macro 1:2 for Christmas despite me distinctly telling her not to buy me anything bike or camera related. I've fired off about 30 shots with it. Image quality seems ok but nothing special - but then its a high zoom £100 lens so i wouldn't expect it to be.
Don't need the range and certainly don't need the size of the thing - drop me an email if your interested.
I was thinking about getting a Nikon
You lost me there....
😉
i have the tamron lens, its fine, some of my best shots have been taken with it.
that said, i got it with my camera, so i havent compared it to the nikon equivalent.
Assuming you mean the Nikon 70-300G and not the 70-300F (which has VRII and costs about three times as much) there's probably not that much in it. I've not used either (only the F, which is nice) but from what I understand they're both ok, for £100 zooms.
Loads of reviews online if you're that way inclined.
Reports seem to be that the Nikon has the edge on image quality, but not by much.
The Tamron has problems in the focusing department, searching in low light conditions.
What are you going to use it for?
Mainly for taking pictures of my sons rugby team.
Nikon would be the better bet for the faster focusing. IMO.
Bear in that a cheap lens is going to have optical weaknesses, it is a big ask to get crisp images right through the 70 to 300mm range. I'd propbably go and have a play with them, if possible.
Image quality is less of a concern in a lens like that imo. Usability is more important. So stuff like focus accuracy, speed and reliability, and even handling.
I've got a Sigma lens that takes wonderful photos IF it focuses properly, and it's not even a telephoto which makes life harder in general.
Rugby pictures wouldn't be too demanding in terms of IQ though - your subjects are fairly large and you're not usually that far away so you won't be cropping loads like you would if you were trying to take pictures of ickle birdies in distant trees.
Have a look at the [url= http://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-apo-dg-macro-interchangeable-lens-review-4569 ]Sigma 70-300[/url]
Gets better reviews than the Tamron. Used it quite a bit & took some pretty decent pics with it.
I dropped it & damaged it (still works though) more than welcome to try it if you're anywhere near Newbury/Bristol. I've replaced it now so its just sat gathering dust.
Far from perfect I know, but this was taken with the Sony fit Tamron
[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8516/8347998670_1bffb90b3e_b.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/8347998670/ ]Moon1[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr
For comparison, here's the same subject taken with Sony's 75-300 f4.5-5.6 lens:
[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8339/8204558472_a0cdea60b1_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/8204558472/ ]moon-5[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr
The Tamron SP AF one seems to get better reviews - quicker focus, sharper, less CA - the lens I wish I'd bought!