Tamron 70-300mm F4/5.6 DI LD Macro For Canon, Nikon & Sony - £99.95 Delivered @ 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
Good deal for anyone looking for a budget 70- 300mm zoom lense. Free nextday delivery as well. GOOD REVIEWS.

Also at AMAZON
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0012UUP02

- wnofal
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
kishorejames Avatar
5y, 8m agoFound 5 years, 8 months ago
Options

All Comments

(28) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
1 Like #2
Same at Amazon too.
#3
Same Price at Amazon too Amazon

Good find :)

Not bad for those wanting to explore telephoto but don't expect a "pro" razor-sharp- fast/accurate focus capabilities..
and you need a steady hand if you're shooting @300 w/o VR/IS/OS/VC ...otherwise you'll have to use hi-iso to get a relatively fast shutter
#4
this will go on a Nikon D60 i presume?

Anyone know?

cheers,
Dave.
1 Like #5
It has a built-in motor for Auto Focus on cameras like D40/40x/60
Emera1d
this will go on a Nikon D60 i presume?

Anyone know?

cheers,
Dave.
#6
Thanks, awesome deal...might get me one of those :)
1 Like #7
Is it not worth the extra £40 and getting say the Nikon 55-200mm VR lens. I know zoom is not the same but is a Nikon lens?
#8
I have the AFS DX 55-200 VR and it's a very good one...but you're talking a bout 50% more of the £100 tag :)
plus, the 55-200 doesn't have a MACRO feature....
on the other hand...it has VR (which I believe is quite helpful considering the fact people who buy such lenses are mainly beginners and enthusiasts who might not have same stability and control like Pros who can hold still for more than 2~3 seconds:) ) and the Nikon glass is better hands-down

fleetingmind
Is it not worth the extra £40 and getting say the Nikon 55-200mm VR lens. I know zoom is not the same but is a Nikon lens?
#9
Of course, using a tripod or dropping aperture/ISO will reduce camera shake, however, you will be reducing quality or time to get the right picture. I personally believe that the Nikon 55-200 VR would be a better way to go as long as you don;t need the extra 100mm and can flash an extra £40.

It is a good deal and watching lens prices drop is a great thing for all amateurs!

ahleung
#10
I'm a very new to photography and have a Nikon D60. I'v ehad enough of my kit lens and was looking at a zoom lens or something like a 18-105 for a general lens for family shots.

Any advice if this is a good option?
Excuse my ignorance what does the macro feature do?
#11
fleetingmind
I'm a very new to photography and have a Nikon D60. I'v ehad enough of my kit lens and was looking at a zoom lens or something like a 18-105 for a general lens for family shots.

Any advice if this is a good option?
Excuse my ignorance what does the macro feature do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography
1 Like #12
fleetingmind
I'm a very new to photography and have a Nikon D60. I'v ehad enough of my kit lens and was looking at a zoom lens or something like a 18-105 for a general lens for family shots.

Any advice if this is a good option?
Excuse my ignorance what does the macro feature do?

The Macro feature allows you to take macro (close up), shots. The following shots were all taken with this lens in Macro mode:

http://attachments.techguy.org/attachments/131491d1210092227/shoe.jpghttp://ddspictures.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/d2t1906-edit.jpg

There's a thread here with images that have been taken with the lens: http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/tamron-af-70300-f456-ld_topic12717.html

Like wnofal I actually have the Nikon 55-200 VR. I'm with him, I think having the VR is worth the lower zoom and having Nikon Glass. It may seem a little strange going for a lens with less zoom but I'd urge you to try one of these out. John Lewis usually have this lens and you can ask to try it on a Nikon or whatever. When I tried it I had my elbows resting on a table and took some long range shots across the store. They looked OK... until I zoomed in.... the amount of movement I must have had even with my elbows resting on a solid surface, was unbelievable. The images were actually very blurred close up and the contrast seemed very soft. Now some of that will be to do with the long range (this ain't high-end glass we're talking about so you can't expect it to be amazing) and some will be operator shake (me). However, playing with the lens a bit more showed me that it was not 'all' down to operator shake. The lens seemed to work at its best up to 200mm, after that the quality drops away (certainly in my experience anyway). Following that I had a rethink and decided I might as well go for the Nikon 55-200 Lens (better glass), with the benefit of VR. It cost slightly more than this (I waited until there was an offer on it which they do every now and again). I'd LOVE to be able to afford a 18-200 lens but at around £500 that ain't gonna be happening unless I win that Euro Lottery this week!

A word of warning on the Nikon 55-200 lens. There are two versions of the lens, one WITH VR the other WITHOUT VR, so be careful when purchasing. You may think you've found a bargain only to discover you've purchased a non VR lens. This is the one WITH VR: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-55-200MM-4-5-6-VR-Black/dp/B000O161X0 Oh and one final thing, make sure you're getting a UK model. There are sellers out there supplying this lens cheaply but they're 'grey imports'. It's still a Nikon lens and still has the same features and same quality BUT Nikon will NOT honour a warranty to you if you're in the UK and you've bought a 'grey import'. Terrible I know but it's worth knowing as the few quid you might save on buying from one seller may end up costing you a LOT if the lens goes wrong!







Edited By: Blasphemous on Mar 22, 2011 10:16: .
#13
I have a Tamron zoom on my Nikon D60 - slightly older version of this lens I think. It's ok but I find the images a bit soft. If I were using my camera more I would probably look for a deal on a Nikon lens rather than buy another Tamron. But again, the initial cost will be more than this lens.
4 Likes #14
For DSLR beginners, they should all get a 50mm f/1.8 in their kit. For £99 you can't go wrong.
#15
fleetingmind
I'm a very new to photography and have a Nikon D60. I'v ehad enough of my kit lens and was looking at a zoom lens or something like a 18-105 for a general lens for family shots.

Any advice if this is a good option?
Excuse my ignorance what does the macro feature do?


18-105mm is a good lens for landscape and portrait photography. I have a Canon 28-135mm lens which I find is a good walk around lens.

Though recently changed it for a Sigma 18-250mm not quite as good optics, but for the majority of shots it is still good. Plus sometimes need the extra length to get the shot, without having to change the lens.

HTH :)
#16
Blah lens. Most manufacturers do a much sharper lens with IS for only a little more, like the Canon 55-250mm for example. If you want a 70-300mm then you should spend what they cost and pick up a nice Tamron 70-300 SP VC (£350). The SP model is much sharper AND has IS.

Also, it has been £100 for a long time on Amazon.
#17
it's an ok lens. Needs good light and focus is slooooooow

Soft at end.

but it's does produce nice results as a walk-a-round lens in the country

for £100 you can't grumble. I'm using one today on a food shoot and other stuff as it'll suit where I'm doing it.
1 Like #19
Technically speaking, and as is true for many lenses in this class of lens, this isn't a true Macro Lens. For it to be an actual macro lens, it would have to be capable of producing an image on the sensor that is 1:1 or better, ie a 1cm object would have to be 1cm on the sensor.

The manufacturers are slapping the badge "macro" onto their lenses to make them more appealing, when they are merely close-up lenses.

This lens can produce images of 1:2 magnification, making it a macro-type lens, but not a true macro. If you are after a mediocre, cheap lens that can take close-ups, then this is a good option.

As sharpness of image is paramount for successful close-up photography, the use of this lens at 300mm would limit you to f/8 for sharp images, as this review explains:

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/281-tamron-af-70-300mm-f4-56-ld-di-macro-pentax-k-review--lab-test-report

F/8 for macro would require a lot of additional light to get suitable shutter speeds, without opting for high ISO's that adds noise and deteriorates quality.

For macro, I currently opt for my Canon 500D (a macro lens-converter filter about £30) on my Canon 70-300 IS USM:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_1Sb7jYqXFgI/S5lG680qmUI/AAAAAAAAA0c/jwuQqNWyW9I/s512/DW-6214.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_1Sb7jYqXFgI/S5lG4BEyd6I/AAAAAAAAA0U/yLiJA2Z6Xeg/s512/DW-6181.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_1Sb7jYqXFgI/S5lHZsYkpCI/AAAAAAAAA2E/Ru21rDdjw-Q/s512/DW-7470.jpg

A very good article on close-up photography and the 500D can be found here:
500D on CameraHobby.com

Edited By: monkeyboy1982 on Mar 22, 2011 14:41: More info, sorry!
#20
fleetingmind
It may seem a little strange going for a lens with less zoom but I'd urge you to try one of these out


Why is it a little strange to choose a lens with less zoom?

In my opinion an f/1.8 standard prime (say, 50mm), which can be picked up for about £85 new, produces wonderfully sharp and vibrant images, with gorgeously shallow D.O.F. The 50mm lens has no zoom, and imo is a far superior lens to the one posted here.

I'd take a cheap prime over a similarly priced zoom anyday.






Edited By: monkeyboy1982 on Mar 22, 2011 15:22: Updated info
#21
Would this fit my SONY A230?
1 Like #22
Csirkefogo
Would this fit my SONY A230?

Yes
1 Like #23
kishorejames
Csirkefogo
Would this fit my SONY A230?
Yes

And remember the sony's have in body image stabilisation so you can take hand held shots at 300mm and get good results with this lens. I got this lens last month in addition to my sony 18-55, 50mm prime and 55-200mm lenses.

I thought it would offer more zoom than it does over the 55-200mm sony i have but theres really not much in it, however you get the macro capabilities of the tamron.....

But im now left with the descision of, do i really need both the sony 55-200mm and the tamron 70-300....

However at £99 it didnt really matter, its a steal!
#24
monkeyboy1982
Why is it a little strange to choose a lens with less zoom?

In my opinion an f/1.8 standard prime (say, 50mm), which can be picked up for about £85 new, produces wonderfully sharp and vibrant images, with gorgeously shallow D.O.F. The 50mm lens has no zoom, and imo is a far superior lens to the one posted here.

I'd take a cheap prime over a similarly priced zoom anyday.


Horses for courses... a prime lens is useful for one job, a zoom is useful for another. Neither will do the other's job well.

I have the 50mm f1.8 Canon lens, but it is useful for just one job - portraiture from a set distance. Especially on a crop sensor, where it becomes a 70 or 80mm lens.

Similarly, if I wanted to shoot a portrait with my 70-300 cheapo Sigma zoom then I know it'll be too soft. It ain't meant for that job, it's meant for long range stuff or a bit of close-up here and there.

I would say for a beginner or keen novice or an amateur with an empty wallet, this is a good enough entry level. I've always preferred Tamron over Sigma and if I would take it over my Sig any day.

That said - if you are a really keen amateur, I would recommend saving the extra cash and waiting a bit longer to get a better quality lens. You do really need an f2.8 if you can.
#25
received today...cheers OP :D
#26
Emera1d
received today...cheers OP :D

you'r welcome
#27
recieved mine as well. I can post photos taken by my sony a350 using this lense, if anyone inerested. I should say i have satisfied wih my purchase.
#28
I'd been wondering whether to try one of these because they were so cheap, but after trying one in Jessops yesterday I convinced myself that I really didn't want one. Yes it's cheap, and may be fine as your first zoom lens, but I couldn't believe how slow the autofocus was, and it was hunting quite badly even outside in daylight. Lol, even the salesperson in the store agreed that it was poor, and was £99 for a very good reason. I know the alternatives are much more expensive, but save your money and get a 70-200 F4 L if you can. Perhaps I'm being picky, but if you do want one, try one in store first.

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!