- 9 Groups, 13 Elements Lens Construction
- Rotation Type of Zooming
- 9 Diaphragm Blade Number
- F/32 Minimum Aperture
- 59 inch Minimum Focus Distance (1.5m) in normal setting, 37.4 inch (0.95m) in macro mode f=180mm-300mm range
Product Description
Tamron now offers a lightweight, compact, high-image-quality telephoto zoom lens with macro capability of 1:2 that can be used with digital cameras. This new lens is a Di type lens using an optical system with improved multi-coating designed to function with digital SLR cameras as well as film cameras.
With this 70-300mm telephoto zoom lens, flipping a macro switch in the focal length range of 180mm to 300mm obtains a maximum magnification ratio of 1:2 at a minimum focus distance as short as 37.4″, enabling close-up shots of flowers, insects, and other objects that normally require the use of a specially designed macro lens. Moreover, this is a zoom lens that casually offers the distant capture and foreshortening effect pleasures of the 300mm ultra-telephoto world.
Hiram Grant @ 5:13 pm
The new Di lenses from Tamron are designed to work well with digital cameras, although those with the Di will work for 35mm as well (Di-II only work with smaller, APS-C chip size digital cameras). This is an improvement on the fine 70-300 LD (Low Dispersion glass) design. The major improvements in this lens are in the coatings, to help reduce any color bias, and minimize reflections. Additionally, lens manufacturers are doing more inside the barrels to reduce reflections.
Like the older LD design, the new lens has a close-up mode (not strictly “macro”) position that allows images 1/2 lifesize on the negative. That’s about twice the size of most 300mm zooms lacking this feature.
Compared to the Nikon lenses, it has a metal lens mount (vs. cheaper 70-300G), and slightly longer warranty (6 vs. 5 years). The Nikon (Nikkor) G lens is also considerably older, designed before the demands of digital cameras were understood. It does appear, however, that Nikon will be offering an upgrade to the 70-300 ED lens this fall.
M. Boone @ 7:43 pm
I enjoyed this lens for awhile, after selling my Nikon 80-400mm VR because it was huge and heavy. I initially tested it out, using the “macro” abilities quite a bit, but later found that all I needed in my everyday use was focal length. Sure, there are shots I could get at 400mm that I couldn’t quite get at 300mm, but 95% of the time 300mm was the perfect length.
This lens was very handy on a trip to Hawaii, but I have since sold it and moved up to the Nikon 70-300mm VR (now that it is quite a good deal on Amazon), so I will make some (hopefully helpful) comparisons between the two.
Pros:
* Light weight, low cost – value is definitely the strongest point of this lens
* Sharp at 300mm (should always stop down to f8 or f11 for best results here)
* Great color (like most Tamron lenses)
Cons:
* No VR (becomes helpful at longer focal lengths)
* Auto-focus can be slow, almost unusable in low light
* Image quality not quite on par with the Nikon 70-300mm VR
I say “not quite” because there is nothing wrong with the images I took with this lens. They are sharp (for the most part) with strong color, no problems really, but when compared to the shots I’ve taken with the Nikon 70-300mm VR they are not quite as impressive. It’s a subtle difference, but there is a definite advantage to the glass used in the Nikon lens. (NOTE: I am only talking about the VR lens, not either of Nikon’s less expensive 70-300mm lenses.)
For my use, the VR of the Nikon is a huge plus and has helped me get some shots I could not get sharp otherwise. The Nikon lens is much heavier, though, and carrying it around for half a day on a recent trip left my arms rather tired.
I would recommend the Tamron for someone wanting a light-weight travel lens on a budget. You will get more than you expect out of this low-cost lens.
I would recommend against it if you shoot mostly in low light situations, as the Tamron’s weakest point is its problems focusing in low light.
Ervin J. Vice @ 9:35 pm
. . . when you buy this light-weight workhorse telephoto. Well, I call it a workhorse because over the course of the past year I have used it extensively. It was in fact my first telephoto lens and it taught me a lot about depth of field and composition. The close-focusing ability with the “macro” switch is very handy and a joy to anyone who likes flower close-ups. The bokeh on this thing is buttery-smooth, and it’s pretty sharp up to about 185mm, the shortest setting you can have with the macro function on (beyond that, sharpness drops off). In all, this is an excellent bargain and a decent performer.
rdp22 @ 9:43 pm
I bought this over the Nikon 70-300mm, about $100 less. The peformance seems to be comparable, and includes the macro function. As should be expected, this is not a very fast lens and requires good light, in low light you really need a tripod. I wanted a good starter telephoto without spending too much, this fit the bill.
W. Upchurch @ 11:01 pm
I do find better image quality in this A17N version over the 572DN, allegedly due to better anti-reflection coatings.
Another improvement is cosmetic, really.. covering of the zoom ring is much nicer looking than the rubbery armor-like solution of the older model.
Both models, however, share one annoying trait, no doubt common to newer mechanical linkages of lighter-weight components?: With just the wrong bump, the zoom ring can come uncoupled. The results with both lenses has been that, until sent for repair, zooming has to be push-pull of the front end of the extended lens barrel. More disturbing, however, is that the autofocussing also starts to evidence sounds of minor binding, so that the motor is working harder in certain ranges. That concerns me if it could lead to camera AF motor burn out, or linkage failure.
For intended use and for the price range, the lens performs wonderfully well, and I enjoy the 1:2 “macro” usage I’ve gotten out of it. Reviews I’ve read tout this lens as optically pretty much equal or better than the Nikon version of it, and while I cannot directly compare, I wouldn’t argue otherwise from the images I’ve gotten.
I can recommend it for a carry-around lens for easy-access-nature use, whether flora or fauna, at least on digital slrs with good noise handling at higher ISO’s and/or in ample light.