Should I buy the Tamron 28-300mm?

[Traxtor]

At first I was looking at the original Canon EF 100-300mm. But then I bought this digitalfoto magazine in Norway where they had a test. The test subjects (on the Canon side) was Canon EF-S 55-250mm, Canon EF 70-300mm, Sigma 135-400mm and the Tamron AF28-300mm. They tested Picture quality, functions, price and usability. And what surprised me was that the Tamron lens won the test. It got 9 out of 10 on everything. The Tamron (new one) has VC as well. And it has quite impressive specs with F/3.5-6.3. But I don't know. The one without image stabilizer is 200$ cheaper. Is the stabilizer worth it? And by the way, the prices in Norway are expensive because of the strong value. So the Tamron is about 750$ with VC(IS). So should I go with this one or something else? I really need a 300mm lens since all I got now is a 18-55mm.
Thanks in advance
Trax

 

[TamiyaGuy]

What camera do you have? Because if I remember correctly, all DSLRs but the absolute best (D300, EOS 5d upwards) can only autofocus well up to F/5.6. So if you are thinking of buying it, you need to make absolutely sure you test it out first.

 

[JIP]

It all depends on what you are wanting in a lens. A lens like this has major issues when it comes to image quality. This is a compromise to give you the most range possible so if you want convienience over image quality go for it but if your image quality is important to you buy a shorter and faste lens.

 

[uplander]

While I don't know much about the Tamron lens you describe , I have one Tamron and it is okay but hardly a really good lens.
I have the Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM and found it to be a pretty decent lens. Some reviews have described it as an L lens in a plastic coating

 

[Traxtor]

What camera do you have? Because if I remember correctly, all DSLRs but the absolute best (D300, EOS 5d upwards) can only autofocus well up to F/5.6. So if you are thinking of buying it, you need to make absolutely sure you test it out first.

400D is my present camera.

It all depends on what you are wanting in a lens. A lens like this has major issues when it comes to image quality. This is a compromise to give you the most range possible so if you want convienience over image quality go for it but if your image quality is important to you buy a shorter and faste lens.

Yeah well that is what I am asking myself. I am not a pro but I want good picture quality. I can't afford an L lens but neither do I need a lens that covers a huge range like the 28-300mm. So maybe i should go for the Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM. It's a little bit more expensive but it might just be worth it?

While I don't know much about the Tamron lens you describe , I have one Tamron and it is okay but hardly a really good lens.
I have the Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM and found it to be a pretty decent lens. Some reviews have described it as an L lens in a plastic coating

After some second thoughts I'm considering this lens more and more.

 

[JIP]

While I don't know much about the Tamron lens you describe , I have one Tamron and it is okay but hardly a really good lens.
I have the Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM and found it to be a pretty decent lens. Some reviews have described it as an L lens in a plastic coating

I am not trying to take a shot a Tamron they (and Sigma for that matter) make fine lenses it is just a lens with this kind of range is going to have image quality issues.

 

[uplander]

I am not trying to take a shot a Tamron they (and Sigma for that matter) make fine lenses it is just a lens with this kind of range is going to have image quality issues.

Thats's the rub there, lenses with a long zoom range tend to soft at the extremes. I have the Tamron18-200 and as I evolved in photography the more disapointed I became in this lens. There are no shortcuts and you get what you pay and sometimes less.

 

[keith204]

It really depends on the lens range you have, and what you expect out of this lens. I currently have some nice glass...fast, sharp, etc...(finally). At this point, I would LOVE a lens with a huge range, like this one you mention. Why? To put on my camera when going to amusement parks, when going to a company picnic, when going boating, etc. Times when I don't necessarily care about quality, but when range would be very nice. However, I, personally, would NEVER use this lens for an event I was getting paid to shoot.

If you are in a similar boat (mine's a 1967 Mark Twain Mercruiser Sterndrive 4.3L Inboard/Outboard), then maybe look into 18-200 of some sort. 18mm is MUCH wider than 28mm, especially when requiring a walkaround lens. If there is a decent 18-200, then that would indeed be a true, crappy, walkaround lens...that might suit your needs perfectly (would mine).

 

[Traxtor]

It really depends on the lens range you have, and what you expect out of this lens. I currently have some nice glass...fast, sharp, etc...(finally). At this point, I would LOVE a lens with a huge range, like this one you mention. Why? To put on my camera when going to amusement parks, when going to a company picnic, when going boating, etc. Times when I don't necessarily care about quality, but when range would be very nice. However, I, personally, would NEVER use this lens for an event I was getting paid to shoot.

If you are in a similar boat (mine's a 1967 Mark Twain Mercruiser Sterndrive 4.3L Inboard/Outboard), then maybe look into 18-200 of some sort. 18mm is MUCH wider than 28mm, especially when requiring a walkaround lens. If there is a decent 18-200, then that would indeed be a true, crappy, walkaround lens...that might suit your needs perfectly (would mine).

Well, I understand what your saying. But I don't really know what I'm looking for. I think I have to look into myself to see what I need the lens for. I WANT a lens that I can use on a long range. But at the same time I want it all covered from where my other lens stops (at least close to it). I'm not a pro photographer and I am not doing any photos for money. But I might be looking into that range in the near future. My other lens is the standard EF-s 18-55mm.

So after reading all the replies (which I am mighty grateful for). I have come to another "topic". Do I need the whole 300mm or is 200mm enough for me (whats the range difference)? And does the 80-200 lens stand out from the 70-300 in image quality?

 

[keith204]

Well, I understand what your saying. But I don't really know what I'm looking for. I think I have to look into myself to see what I need the lens for. I WANT a lens that I can use on a long range. But at the same time I want it all covered from where my other lens stops (at least close to it). I'm not a pro photographer and I am not doing any photos for money. But I might be looking into that range in the near future. My other lens is the standard EF-s 18-55mm.

So after reading all the replies (which I am mighty grateful for). I have come to another "topic". Do I need the whole 300mm or is 200mm enough for me (whats the range difference)? And does the 80-200 lens stand out from the 70-300 in image quality?

I would say for a beginner, 300 is not necessary. Have you looked into the 70-200 f/4L? That's an EXTREMELY good lens, and Canon L quality, for like $550 new.

 

[Traxtor]

WOW!! That's f***ing amazing! I just checked the prices in Norway. It's 1300$! And yeah thats the f/4 not the f/2.8. Guess I have to find a dealer in USA that will send the package as a gift with value under 200$ to avoid taxes. That will be my lens for sure! I was actually looking at it but the price was way to high in Norway. Thanks for giving me the heads up mate

Btw: the one with IS costs 1750$ in Norway. Unbelievable