Tamron 70-300mm vs Tamron 70-300mm SP

minnnt

minnnt

Messages
18,233
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there. I'm in the market for a 70-300mm lens and these two seem to be at the top of my list. Just wondered if anyone has used both of these?

The basic 70-300 is available for under £100 where as the SP version is £290... Now, I know the saying 'you get what you pay for' very well indeed mainly through being a tight are, lol, but, £190 is a lot of money and am I going to see that much difference for someone who is an amateur beginner who shoots occasionally?

Also, the cheaper model has a useful 1:2 macro ratio where as the SP is around 1:4.

But, in its defence, the SP has been compared to the Sony G lens in this range and although it did come second, (not by much!) the G is more than double the price so it must be pretty good?

I need help as my tiny brain is hurting... :cuckoo: :bonk:

Thanks in advance! :)
 
If you are on a budget the Tamron 55-200mm (£89) is excellent for the price and better than the Tamron 75-300. Or get the rebadged Sony version for around £100 (white box, ie: new but split from kit). The old Minolta beercan (70-210 f4) is also good for around £70 to £80 used but much bigger and heavier than either of the cheap Tamrons. The Minolta 100mm - 200mm f4.5 is another decent lens which sells for around £60 and is much smaller and lighter than the beercan although IQ not quite as good but still decent. None of these go to 300mm obviously but 200mm might be enough?

Otherwise the Sony 55-300mm is said to compete quite well with the Tamron SP and can be found a little cheaper - the AF is a little slower than the SP and the front element rotates when focusing so not ideal if using filters, but otherwise close to the IQ of the SP for a bit less money. (Have seen it for £230 new in the UK (ebay) or it's £220 grey import from DigitalRev Hong Kong). http://www.digitalrev.com/product/sony-dt-55-300mm-f4/MTAwMTEyOA_A_A

If you can stretch to the £289 for the Tamron SP USD though it is supposed to be the best telephoto option for the Sony cameras for under £300. It's also a lot bigger and heavier than the cheaper Tamron and Sony lenses but similar weight to the beercan lens.
 
Thanks for your detailed reply applemint. I already have the Tamron 55-200 and I am really happy with it. I paid £75 second hand for it from Amazon and it's quite a nice lens. Well made for the price range IMO. I just feel the need for a little further reach...

OK, completely the other way now... What are your thoughts on something wide angled say up to £250?

Thanks again!
 
minnnt said:
OK, completely the other way now... What are your thoughts on something wide angled say up to £250?
Click to expand...
what's your idea of wide-angled?
Mine on a 1.5x crop is under 18mm e.g. the Sigma 10-20, Tamron/Sony 11-18, Tamron 10-24, Tokina 11-16/2.8 & the Sigma 8-16 & even s/h you'll struggle to get down to £250. (btw the last 2 listed are probably the 2 best)
 
heidfirst said:
what's your idea of wide-angled?
Mine on a 1.5x crop is under 18mm e.g. the Sigma 10-20, Tamron/Sony 11-18, Tamron 10-24, Tokina 11-16/2.8 & the Sigma 8-16 & even s/h you'll struggle to get down to £250. (btw the last 2 listed are probably the 2 best)
Click to expand...

Hi Heidfirst. Thanks for the reply. The Tamron SP 17-50 f2.8 has caught my eye. Seems to get decent reviews and the sample images on dyxum look good.
 
I don't have an ultra-wide but a friend has the Tokina 11-16/2.8 on his Nikon and is very happy with it.

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is an excellent lens for the price - AF is quite noisy though. :) It's a great step up from the kit lens - not many other options for 17mm unless you get the more expensive Sony 16-50mm f2.8 DT SSM Lens which is better build quality, much quieter AF and also weatherproofed I think?

Not as fast, but a good option if you want a zoom that covers a lot of situations is the Sony 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 SAM which gets good reviews (not used it myself - prefer primes generally). Caste Cameras has them for £229 which is a good price for that lens: http://www.castlecameras.co.uk/sony-dt-18-135mm-f35-56-sam-lens-for-sony-alpha-dslr

Reviews: http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/Sony-DT-18-135-F3.5-5.6-SAM_review660.html

(Useful site for Sony and Minolta lens data)
 
minnnt said:
Thanks for the suggestion. It does indeed get good reviews!

50mm and above regardless, would you say it's a better choice than the Tamron 17-50 f2.8?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I would expect the Tamron to be sharper and of course it has f2.8 - not having used the 18-135mm I cannot compare but the main selling points of that lens would be convenience (to avoid changing lenses as it could replace 3 or 4 primes) and would make a good walkabout zoom and good fairly light travel lens.

That said, someone here has both and reckons they prefer the 18-135: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3513697


The Tamron 70-300 SP USD has a Flickr group which is quite helpful and has lots of sample photos: http://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron_70-300mm_vc_usd/discuss/72157626583836812/

There is also an in depth user review of the Tamron lens on an A57 (basically the same camera as the A37 internally) here: http://www.lawrencephotographic.com...#Tamron_70-300mm_f4/f5.6_SP_Di_USD_Zoom_Lens_
 
I've got the Sony 16-105, 16-50/2.8 & recently added the 18-135 (£199 from Digital Depot).
They are all good with different pros & cons.
Also thinking about adding the 55-300 for days when I don't want to tote the 70-400 ...

Do you think that I might have Gear Acquisition Syndrome?:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top