Customer Reviews

TAMRON A06 AF28-300MM F/3.5-6.3 XR Ultra Zoom Lens for CANON

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a great lens and unless you have the $4,000 Canon you will be quite pleased. However, for the digital Canon get the Tamron 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical Macro Ultra Zoom Digital Lens for Canon SLR Cameras instead. The Di is designed specifically for the Digital Canon and is the same money.

I have been using this lens for a couple of weeks now and over all have been very pleased with the results. I have shot over 500 photos (I love digital photography!) and for the price you cannot beat the wide range and over all function of this lens. Sure there are better and faster lens out there but they will not cover the zoom range and you will pay out the nose for a brand name lens. I have to admit I use PhotoShop to tweak all my photos but for me, that is part of the fun. This is the only lens you need to carry in the old camera bag!

I have the older version of this lens. It is not the world's best piece of glass, but it goes everywhere with me. It's relatively light-weight and does what it is supposed to do. Not spectacularly. But when I travel, I don't want anything heavy or fussy. I take this lens and a wide angle (to get complete buildings or monuments in the picture) and that's it. You don't look conspicuous carrying a big photographer's bag.

You can pay a lot more and get a much better lens. But if you spend the money and get a great Canon L lens, you're going to end up leaving it at home since it's so heavy and intimidates people (forget about getting casual shots).

My rule of thumb is: when the tripod mounts onto the lens, not the camera body, the lens isn't portable.

I also shouldn't say this---but the lens is relatively indestructible. I had the Tamon 28-200 before this, and I've fallen off things with it, and the lens still worked. Plus it's cheap enough (for a lens) that you don't worry about it.

Having that wide of a zoom range is certainly awesome, but the optics on this camera are very dissapointing. I frequently would have to bump up my aperature and sharpen in my computer to try to get more focus, becuase this lens has major problems with fuzziness and crispness in all situations. My basic canon lens 28-90 has much clearer pictures and even those need sharpening.

Overall, I love how light and compact the lens is and the range I can cover with it, but I think I am sacrificing a lot for a lower price and smaller size.

I've used this lens for the last 8 months on my Pentax K100D and find it to be a great value. Is it soft? Slightly, when viewed at full size (NOT full screen, but 100% resolution), or when printed at poster size. Does it have purple fringing? Maybe slightly on high contrast shots, but then so do some of my other supposedly better lenses. The colors and contrast are fine and the bokeh is pretty good. All the negatives of my copy of this lens just don't show up in the way I use the shots (viewed full screen, or printed 8x10). The only photo contest I've ever won was with a print taken by this lens, so it's certainly a capable lens.

I'll say that I paid well less than what's advertised here, so that has certainly biased my judgement. If I paid close to $400, I may choose other lenses, such as the 18-250 version, but the range is very convenient.