Tameron Lens

[neonride93]

I know this topic has been hased and rehased so I am sorry for rethreading it..... I saw the post on the front page but I just want some personal experiances.

New to photography, no plans to go professional so this is just a hobby for me. My main subjects of my shoots are my family. I also do a little nature photography and would like to get into landscapes. ( I am an avid Geocacher so I see some unique things all the time) I have a D3100, with just the kit lens.

So my question is... Tameron lens? I see these for sometimes half the price if not more. Is the image quality comparible? is the lens quality comparable? Specifically I am looking at a 70-300mm

( Amazon.com: Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro Zoom Lens with Built In Motor for Nikon Digital SLR: Camera & Photo)

For just a weekend shooter will I be satisfied? Or will I end up being dissapointed and should I just pony up for a nikon lens. Or does anyone have a suggestion for my first second lens.

[bhursey]

Depends on the lens. Just as with canon the quality depends on the lens. So read reviews online.. I can say that there 28-75mm f2.8 lens is great!.

[africanrefugee]

Originally Posted by bhursey

I can say that there 28-75mm f2.8 lens is great!.

I can agree with that, but must say their 17-50mm f2.8VC is even better with VC.

Originally Posted by neonride93

So my question is... Tameron lens? I see these for sometimes half the price if not more. Is the image quality comparible? is the lens quality comparable? Specifically I am looking at a 70-300mm

For just a weekend shooter will I be satisfied? Or will I end up being dissapointed and should I just pony up for a nikon lens. Or does anyone have a suggestion for my first second lens.

Remember the first rule is that the quality of the photograph is determined by the quality of the lens, and you get what you pay for. I have recently purchased a Canon 70-200mm f4L IS and I can see the quality difference in my photos. Having said that I have a number of Tamron lenses and they are great for the price. Remember the lens you are looking at does not have VC (vibration compensation) or VR (vibration reduction if Nikon). Actually the Tamron 70-300mm VC lens is better than the Canon 70-300mm IS. Generally I would say that if you can get the Tamron at a good price, go for it. It is good enough for amateur photographers in most instances, but the Tamron VC and Nikon VR lenses would give you better photos, simply because they remove camera shake and thus compensate for poor technique. The Tamron lenses are superb in compensating for camera shake. Also if you are careful you can get good used lenses on e-bay for keen prices.

A short answer to your question is that unless you are a 'pixel peeper', you should be happy with the lens.

[africanrefugee]

Neonride. Check out this review: Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro Interchangeable Lens Review

[kirbinster]

Well I had a Tarmon 200-500mm and found it very soft - sold it. I bought a Tamron 28-300VR when I got my Nikon D700. I loved the range, but am not thrilled with the lens. I since picked up a Nikon 28-300 VR which costs a lot more, but the image quality is MUCH better.

Remember - you generally pay for what you get.

[africanrefugee]

kirbinster. Any lens with a range of 200-500mm will have tradeoffs. Like you said the Nikon version of the Tamron 28-300mm lens was far better than the Tamron but also cost far more. And thats the rub... everything has a place at the price. Looking at your kit you are an advanced photographer and have invested a lot in kit (or born into money). Neonride by admission is a weekend shooter and the Tamron should be a good stepping stone. If the bug bites he will upgrade, if not he has not wasted money on kit he will not make use of. Thats the basis of my advice to him. As you can see I am also guilty of spending more money on kit than my ability warrants.

[kirbinster]

I wrote a thread about gear not long ago where I said you buy bodies but rent lenses. What I mean by that is if (like me) you buy lenses used you can later sell them and either make a slight profit or maybe give up $50 to $100. I currently have about 9 nice lenses and have sold another 9 that I started with. The point is glass is a good investment and your cost of ownership is much less for good glass than cheap glass.

[richardrash]

I am a noob hoobyist as well and I think Tamron lens varies greatly in quality...some are really good for the price (I would say 17-50mm f2.8 for $300? 70-300mm VC for $350?), but some is really quite disappointing (like the 28-300mm VC I have owned and sold, 18-270mm VC is just not on par with 18-200mm VR II)
So do plenty of research! Tamrons are great, cost less, lighter..but their customer service isn't as good as Nikon (on paper it says 6 years but wait till you try to deal with them when your lens fails)

[kirbinster]

Not sure I agree with that. I have a 28-300VC and while it is not as good as the Nikon which costs more than twice the price it is not a bad lens. I had a problem with it and sent it to Tamron, they fixed it and cleaned it and adjusted it and sent it back to me in about a week with no issues.

[richardrash]

Oh ok..maybe it's my luck i got a very bad copy. Noise and soft and low contrast images. And one time I tried to contact Tamron for warranty repair it took them 2 weeks to get back to me. They do answer calls but the RMA never got processed. And they refused to fix it for free, saying I damaged the VC....blah. Glad to hear your story about Tamron, being interested to get their 90mm macro.