Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di LD 1:2 Macro (for Canon)

[tassam380]

Hello,
Harvey Norman are offering the Tamron 70-300 Non-VC Lens for $148 as a part of their post-christmas sale. It caught my eye because of the 1:2 Macro capability. I tried it out, not on my own body because the salesman said it could risk damage... But it was fine for him to put it on one of his bodies. Anyway, The macro was much better than what I had experienced on my 18-55. The one thing I hated about the lens was the zoom ring, it was so sticky and felt horrible! I have seen some very nice photos with the lens and have seen both good and bad reviews. Im just wondering if anyone here has the lens and can shed some light on the Macro capabilities as that is what it would be mainly used for, but also other things too. Keep in mind that my budget is very small at the moment and I don't want you to be comparing this to a 70-200 F/2.8L.
Thankyou,
Sam

[Kerrie]

Good question.....I'm about to buy a sigma 70-200 for my Pentax for $75 ... I'm very new to this ...worth the money to practice with? Sorry I don't about the tamron.....but $the price seems good

[WhoDo]

Im just wondering if anyone here has the lens and can shed some light on the Macro capabilities as that is what it would be mainly used for, but also other things too. Keep in mind that my budget is very small at the moment and I don't want you to be comparing this to a 70-200 F/2.8L.

Hi Sam,

I think you'll be disappointed in the macro capabilities of this or any similar lens. I have the Sigma equivalent 70-300 f/4-5.6 Tele Macro and 1:2 just isn't good enough for the purpose. I know you said you'd use the lens for other things, too, but if the prime purpose is macro then I'd save your $148 and look for a good macro prime instead. This is really a close focus capability rather than true macro.

You're almost half-way to the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM which you can find for under $400 and you'll be much happier with the results, I'm sure. I'm saving for the Nikon equivalent of that lens and it's well within reach, even on a tight budget, and does 1:1 macro with a really short focussing distance. I hope that helps.

[ricktas]

Agree with Waz, the best macro lenses are the primes (not zooming) lenses. The Tamron 90mm f2.8 was the leader of the pack for years, but now there are some fantastic offerings in the macro line-up. I have the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro and love it. My 70-200 is 'macro' and it is no where near as good as the dedicated macro lens.

Remember macro lenses also make great portrait lenses.

Save up a bit more and get a decent dedicated macro lens, cause if you are into photography as a long term hobby, you will end up getting one anyway.

[tassam380]

Thankyou all for your help, I had pretty well made my mind up not to go for it but thought that I should just make sure I wasn't missing out on a good deal.

Cheers,
Sam

[yummymummy]

I actually bought the Tamron 70-300 but sold it in favour of the sigma 70-300. The tamron had the worst Chromatic aberration I've ever seen!! ( purple fringing around subjects in photos.)