Tamron 70-300mm F4/5.6 DI LD Macro lens for Canon & Nikon £99 @ Jessops - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
The Tamron 70-300mm F4/5.6 DI LD Macro lens is a lightweight, compact, high-image-quality telephoto zoom lens with macro capability of 1:2 that can be used with digital cameras. This ens 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.

Just picked this up from the Jessop store near me. If you buy via Quidco you should get 8% off too. It looks like a good starter telephoto lens.

This is flickr group with the quality of shots http://www.flickr.com/groups/httpwwwflickrcomgroups750630n21/
More From Jessops:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
McStyles Avatar
6y, 11m agoFound 6 years, 11 months ago
Options

All Comments

(63) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#2
If this had an image stabiliser, I would but without IS just can't justify it.
#3
Moka-Bear
If this had an image stabiliser, I would but without IS just can't justify it.


Sony cameras have it onboard :thumbsup:
specific reviews here on the dyxum site:
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=283
#4
Nikon or Canon IS lenses are triple the price. There is a good example of how much more economical it is when IS is in-camera like Sony, Olympus, Pentax. Howver, Nikon and Canon are more sold. It's all about marketing and brand building.
#5
Godd price for a reasonable budget telephoto.
Next best £112.95 (inc free delivery) at SimplyElectronics
http://electronics.simplyelectronics.net/search?w=Tamron+AF+70-300mm&asug=¤cy=gbp&gclid=CK-s99yh5Z4CFU0B4wodtGTfIQ
#6
J9STL
Sony cameras have it onboard :thumbsup:
specific reviews here on the dyxum site:
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=283


Yeah, but I have a Canon. :(
#7
jack-of-hearts
Godd price for a reasonable budget telephoto.
Next best £112.95 (inc free delivery) at SimplyElectronics
http://electronics.simplyelectronics.net/search?w=Tamron+AF+70-300mm&asug=¤cy=gbp&gclid=CK-s99yh5Z4CFU0B4wodtGTfIQ


I tend to use this site:

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat1.html
#8
Nice spot OP. Was toying with the idea of buying one of these for £129 from warehouse express. Think I'll save myself the £30!
#9
seen this in currys today (sunderland city centre) for £89.99, might be a different model but definately same focal length and tamron lens in canon fit
#10
pet2000
Nikon or Canon IS lenses are triple the price. There is a good example of how much more economical it is when IS is in-camera like Sony, Olympus, Pentax. Howver, Nikon and Canon are more sold. It's all about marketing and brand building.



Here why the IS is in the lens
http://www.usa.canon.com/content/CanonINC/merit/revision/index.html
#11


Yes, because a CANON website is not likely to be partisan on the issue at all is it? Im sure there is equally compelling arguments for the other side.
#12
pet2000
Nikon or Canon IS lenses are triple the price. There is a good example of how much more economical it is when IS is in-camera like Sony, Olympus, Pentax. Howver, Nikon and Canon are more sold. It's all about marketing and brand building.


Another example of someone not understanding the basics :roll: Yes Sony has IS built in to the body BUT its commonly regarded as being NOWHERE near as effective as the IS on either the Canon or Nikon lenses, thats the reason I went Canon. Don't get me wrong, its not bad on the Sony, its just not as good, lets face it, most people spend a lot of money on their DSLR and most I would assume would usually want the best so why compromise?!?
#13
pet2000
Nikon or Canon IS lenses are triple the price. There is a good example of how much more economical it is when IS is in-camera like Sony, Olympus, Pentax. Howver, Nikon and Canon are more sold. It's all about marketing and brand building.


that's not entirely correct, there are technical arguments between having IS within the camera or in the lens.

In-Lens Systems
Advantages
1. More effective with longer lenses
2. You don't pay for it except with the lenses you need it for
3. You see the stabilization effects through the viewfinder

Disadvantages
1. More expensive, especially if you want the feature in more than one lens
2. Not available with all lenses

In-Body Systems
Advantages
1. Works with every lens you mount to the body, and may be the only option for many shorter and faster lenses
2. Less expensive, especially if you want the feature with more than one lens

Disadvantages
1. Progressively less effective with longer and longer lenses
2. Progressively harder to implement with larger image sensors.
#14
Any cheap Nikon 400mm lens out there?
#15
Evil_monkey
Nice spot OP. Was toying with the idea of buying one of these for £129 from warehouse express. Think I'll save myself the £30!


i was tossing up between this lens £100ish and a 50-200 with optical stabilisation at £160ish. i went and talked with several people and they all said to get the optically stabilised one purely because i wouldnt be taking photos on a tripod.

the cool thing was that a few days after getting my 50-200, i took some photos which my workmates liked, and i submitted them to a news source and they got published!
#16
#17
ascen
i was tossing up between this lens £100ish and a 50-200 with optical stabilisation at £160ish. i went and talked with several people and they all said to get the optically stabilised one purely because i wouldnt be taking photos on a tripod.

the cool thing was that a few days after getting my 50-200, i took some photos which my workmates liked, and i submitted them to a news source and they got published!


Totally agree, 300mm without IS is pretty hard to use unless you use a tripod or you are a pro :thumbsup:
#18
buckiebull


I would be wary of products from a company that seem to be based in China
http://rightwholesele.com/about.asp?id=4

Address

NO.89 of Industrial Road, NanYang HeNan China
#19
I myself havent bought anything off this sight but some of my m8's have with virtually no problems.
#20
buckiebull
I myself havent bought anything off this sight but some of my m8's have with virtually no problems.


Are you meaning rightwholesale.com ?
#21
Gollywood
Any cheap Nikon 400mm lens out there?


No.

Consumer lenses (cheap as such things go) stop at 300mm usually. For higher you need the pro-level lenses, which cost an arm and a leg.

My uncles 600mm f4 cannot be handheld, and costs as much as a small car.
#22
ascen
Are you meaning rightwholesale.com ?


Yup there both the same m8.
#23
I got this shot and many similar with the Sigma equivalent of this lens all @300mm so these budgets are ok if used within there limitations. I would think this is similar but might be worth looking at comparisons as Sigma's often slightly out perform Tamron equivalents. Sigma customer service is also legendary they have a very good (and generous!!!) UK service team.

BTW the above shot was NOT using macro mode but this is very powerful and I have seen truly stunning shots with an extender on too!
#24
ollyk
. Sigma customer service is also legendary they have a very good (and generous!!!) UK service team.!


I've read different reports online about their CS, particularly regarding not supporting stripped gears on AF of their lenses.
google "sigma stripped gears"

I thought that Jessops dropped Sigma because of reliability problems and moved to Tamron as independant lens supplier.
#25
If you need to longer 300mm, save yourself some money and just stand a bit closer to the subject
#26
frakison
Totally agree, 300mm without IS is pretty hard to use unless you use a tripod or you are a pro :thumbsup:


or a sniper... :whistling:
#27
londislagerhound
If you need to longer 300mm, save yourself some money and just stand a bit closer to the subject


what if you're photographing tigers??? :giggle:
#28
Thank you
#29
londislagerhound
If you need to longer 300mm, save yourself some money and just stand a bit closer to the subject


Easier said than done at airshows...
#30
You wouldn't pay 3 times as much for IS alone, you'd also be getting better build quality, better optics, faster AF etc.

For example this Sony lens obviously doesn't have IS and at first glance has similar specs to the lens posted here
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/74819/Show.html?tduid=729c2750257378b06bf1ef9d6b472431&url=http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/74819/Show.html
1 Like #31
Why not do what people do with their camera phones when taking pictures of something 200m away - just hold it at arms length - that extra 1m means that the subject will now fill the frame instead of simply being a dot in the middle :thumbsup:

I used to have an 800m lens - now that was heavy - add that to the tripod that weighed over 10kg and looked like it was made from scaffolding poles, you certainly made sure that you REALLY needed it and that the 300mm vr with converter wouldn't be enough.

Go and try the lens out - if you like it buy it - if you dont - don't!

At that price you can't go too far wrong - you're not going to get the sharpest pics ever and they won't be as good as a Canon or Nikon lens - but they wont cost you anything like as much.
It's all very well someone saying that if it was IS/VR they'd have it - well it isn't. Buy a bean bag or a half decent tripod - you'll need it with f5.6.

With respect, if a £100 is what your budget stretches to this will be fine - you can always sell it on ebay and you'd probably lose £50 max - do the same with a Nikon equivalent and you'll lose £200! It's a budget lens - you get what you pay for - you are not going to get a hugely better lens for this amount of money - maybe one that focuses a bit quicker, or that has a slightly better build quality but its not going to an f2.8 with IS/VR and an aluminium case.

You may well buy this and find that you never really use it and at least you haven't wasted a fortune. My first zoom was a second hand manual focus and cost £30. I resold it for almost as much but at least I realised I was going to use it and I knew that I needed to spend a lot to be able to get the one that suited my requirements.

H 'n' R added :santa:
#32
i've curently got a nikon afs 55-200mm for my d40, would it be worth me getting this to use aswell?
#33
souljacker
i've curently got a nikon afs 55-200mm for my d40, would it be worth me getting this to use aswell?


If you want the extra 100mm you could do. You have to ask yourself if you are regularly finding that you need the extra that the 300m offers?

It might be worth selling the one you've got and just having the one? Maybe use the extra cash to buy a second hand 28mm wide angle?
#34
Darthchaffinch
what if you're photographing tigers??? :giggle:


then save your money & get fit
#35
souljacker
i've curently got a nikon afs 55-200mm for my d40, would it be worth me getting this to use aswell?


depends what you use your camera for. do you find yourself often being too far away from what you need to take?
#36
jack-of-hearts
Godd price for a reasonable budget telephoto.
Next best £112.95 (inc free delivery) at SimplyElectronics
http://electronics.simplyelectronics.net/search?w=Tamron+AF+70-300mm&asug=¤cy=gbp&gclid=CK-s99yh5Z4CFU0B4wodtGTfIQ


Avoid SimplyElectronics like the plague. They're a bogus company.
#37
Rosco_2009
then save your money & get fit


Tigers what ? :?

Leave him alone he's in enough trouble as it is without people taking pictures of whatever it was you meant! :-D
#38
hot thanks
#39
frakison
Another example of someone not understanding the basics :roll: Yes Sony has IS built in to the body BUT its commonly regarded as being NOWHERE near as effective as the IS on either the Canon or Nikon lenses, thats the reason I went Canon. Don't get me wrong, its not bad on the Sony, its just not as good, lets face it, most people spend a lot of money on their DSLR and most I would assume would usually want the best so why compromise?!?


You are completly wrong. There is no proof at all which one is better; stabalisation in body or in lens... so why pay more for lens? With Sony, Olympus, Pentax you have image stabilisation for free with EVERY lens even 30 years old!
#40
inognitox
You are completly wrong. There is no proof at all which one is better; stabalisation in body or in lens... so why pay more for lens? With Sony, Olympus, Pentax you have image stabilisation for free with EVERY lens even 30 years old!


see post here: http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/561776/tamron-70-300mm-f4-5-6-di-ld-macro-/showpost.php?p=7286214&postcount=14

the post show exactly the advantages of both, so depending on a persons use and need those advantages then define when in a given situation which is better

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!