Tamron 70-300 f4/5.6

[kiteninja]

I know all the bad points of this lens but is it worth a punt for £99

Its slow, cheap, plasticy but... Anyone have one what do you think ? .

 

[tijuana taxi]

Had one briefly included with some secondhand gear I bought as a job lot, not impressed and sold it for 50 quid which was about all it was worth

 

[BacktotheFuji]

Nope, get the newer Sigma instead. Haven't tried it but I hear it's better than the Tamron (which is not difficult!)

 

[blondie606]

For what it's worth I have this lens & have used it for the past 8 months & got some pretty decent( well I think so) shots

By the standards of some on here this may be dross but I'm happy with it. The lens does go a bit soft at full zoom but it's been ok otherwise

 

[yoby]

I had one of these for over a year and got some passably good football shots. Then it broke (iris blades were sticking and it randomly stuck on a stupidly small aperture). Replaced it with the Sigma and the image quality improvement was a bit of a shock (in a nice way).

Agree with above post that it's pretty soft @ 300mm but the worst thing {imho} about it was the awful chromatic qualities. Never really noticed till I started using the Sigma for the same things (kids footy) but the Tamron had some pretty nasty purpleness going on round the edges of anything at wider apertures......

Get the Sigma !!! (OK it's £124.99 or something close to that but it's more than worth the extra)

 

[BacktotheFuji]

Just to clarify, my comments were based around its performance at 300mm, the huge amounts of CA (purple fringing) at 300mm and maximum aperture and the disappointing performance in low light.

Lynne, that photo is great by the way!