Cheapo Tamron / Sigma 70-300 (Nikon)

[Dan_1981]

Anyone any experience of the cheapo 70-300 lenses from either of these manufacturers?

I see both are available at around £100 - £120

Not expecting wonderous results but both seem to get pretty good reviews for this price point.

Any first hand experience?

[Seight_Returns]

I'm a Canon shooter - but I had a cheap Tamron 70-300 LD for a while.

It was Ok but not great and needed to be stopped down to f8+ for acceptable sharpness - which combined with the rule of thumb for non IS lenses that minimum shutter speed when handheld should be 1/(Focal Length * 1.6), meant that it was only really useable in very good light, or by accepting the compromises associated with winding the ISO right up.

I don't know the Nikon lens line up - but Canon make a very useful budget tele-zoom (EF-S 55-250) that's both better optically and has IS that gets you out of the need to use fast shutter speeds to avoid camera shake - I imagine there's something similar in the Nikion line up.

The more expensive Tamron VC 70-300 is very well reviewed.

[Gemm]

I used the Sigma 70-300mm APO years ago. They are decent enough for that price range but I remember AF was awfully slow and noisy, especially if you are used to USM (or Nikon equivalent).

[Ari]

I've had the Tamron 70-300. It did the job but wasn't very sharp.

I've replaced it with a Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 and it's in a different league! Seen them for less than £200 second-hand, a far better option.

[Simpo Two]

If you're after 70-300 then the Nikon 70-300 VR is the one to get. 'Buy cheap buy twice' or something like that!

[Ari]

Simpo Two said:

If you're after 70-300 then the Nikon 70-300 VR is the one to get. 'Buy cheap buy twice' or something like that!

Exactly what I did...

Ironically I'm now looking to replace the replacement 70-300 with a f2.8 70-200 but I shall keep the 70-300 because it is such a good lens (and has a little extra reach).

[dapprman]

Gemm said:

I used the Sigma 70-300mm APO years ago. They are decent enough for that price range but I remember AF was awfully slow and noisy, especially if you are used to USM (or Nikon equivalent).

I also used it on my D70 and D80 (after dropping my D70 ...) and found it to be great, however once I upgraded to a D300 I found it to be rather soft.

[Oxygen2k10]

I purchased one of these from a guy at work for £40
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-tamron-70-300mm...

And it was a horrible lens. Just bad in pretty much every conceivable way. Naturally I decided to get rid and managed to get £45 for it part exchange. Winner!

I now have the Tamron 70-300 VC:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-...

It's a fantastic lens. For the money especially it's pretty hard to beat.

I don't think the whole 'buy cheap, buy twice' applies so much nowadays. Everything I buy is the 'cheaper' equivalent and I've not had any problems. Tamron and Sigma aren't the cheap crap they used to be and actually make some pretty stella lenses.

[Dan_1981]

So I guess the fact that Amazon currently have the 55-300 Nikon on sale at £164 make it a bit of a no brainer?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-55-300mm...

[nickcowen]

The cheapo tamron lens is a waste of time I have it and wish I'd just waited a bit longer to get a better lens, apart from quite shape macro shots its just all mush the rest of the time.

The new tamron 70-300 SP is supposed to be miles better and under £300 I think with VC. I shoot sony but for you shooting nikon the VC on this lens is supposed to be good.

http://www.parkcameras.com/17030/Tamron-SP-AF-70-3...

[kit80]

I have the sigma one it is definitely on the cheap side, it is better than no lens but if you can afford better I would, it won't be long before I replace mine but it does alright for now.

[droopsnoot]

I've got the Tamron 70-300 di LD (in Pentax form) and it's reasonably good, but obviously it's a budget lens - I paid £40-odd for mine and don't really have much trouble with it. I do find it can lose focus quite easily, for eaxmple trying to photograph a plane in the sky, if you drop off the plane it will hunt for quite a while from ∞ to close up and back again. I have no experience of a better one over the same zoom range, though.

[upsidedownmark]

I had (still have) a 70-300 sigma. Good lens - it only got sidelined when I bought a 70-200/2.8. IIRC, at the time dpreview considered the 'red-ring' APO version to be superior to the nikon 70-300ED of the same vintage (5 years ago) - note that the sigma (used to) come in two versions - the non-apo, and the red ring / apo that was significantly better. Apparently.

Undoubtedly nikon have improved their offering since, and you may be limited depending on the body; some of the lower end bodies lack the in camera focussing motor and only work with afs (in lens motor) lenses. My sigma is driven from the camera, I assume they're the same still).

Buy cheap buy twice is all well and good, but a little trite - you may equally be paying twice as much for the same thing. Doing the research first is often the best way

[epom]

Dan_1981 said:

So I guess the fact that Amazon currently have the 55-300 Nikon on sale at £164 make it a bit of a no brainer?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-55-300mm...

Gonna get me that I think, cheers Dan