I recently bought another copy of this lens, the results of which proved to be better in relation to the previous one. This raises, of course, questions regarding copy variation, but it also means I need to amend my original review. New information in Red. The photos are also new.
General
There's been quite a few older versions of this lens. I've worked extensively with this newer one, and I still can't make up my mind whether it's worth it or not.
Pros/Cons
+ fast tele zoom at a competitive price
+
+ nice push-pull MF activation switch...
- ... but it ain't as great as the instant MF override of the AF-S lenses
-
- big
f/4.5 at 110mm. Flawless, pretty much |
200mm and f/2.8 - very good, way better than the first copy |
Intended Users
Great for:
- those wanting a better (and faster) tele zoom than a consumer 70-300
- normal people (=not pros) wanting photos of their kids indoor sports
- portraits (but there are better options, too)
Not for:
- walk-around lens (lack of VR means you probably need a monopod)
high-resolution scenes (e.g. foliage)fast action. Image quality being fine, the only real issue is the slow and unreliable autofocus- anyone satisfied with the Nikkor AF-S 70-300 VR
Final Verdict
I'd disagree with your final verdict. I know a lot of Nikkor 70-300mm Vr users going to this lens - and not the other way.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. The great thing about lenses and options, is that each can select the one best suited to their individual needs. If someone needs f/2.8 at 200mm and can't afford the Nikkor option, the Tamron is great. If we're talking about image quality in the 70-200mm f/5.6 - f/11 range, the 70-300VR is, in my opinion, if not better at least equal with the Tamron - and with the added benefit of VR, which will probably help most people get this image quality.
ReplyDelete