Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

tamron sp 60-300mm: sleeper or stinker?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:39 pm    Post subject: tamron sp 60-300mm: sleeper or stinker? Reply with quote

ive got a couple of tamron adaptall sp zooms and find theyre pretty good to very good. lately ive seen the 60-300 bbar selling for very cheap and i'm wondering if its a sleeper or a stinker? anyone with any personal experience? ive got the bbar 70-150 and 85-200 and like them, so comparisons are helpful too.
thanks
tony


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:12 pm    Post subject: watch out for distortion Reply with quote

I found one at a flea market for $20 but got rid of it because it had very much geometric distortion
which Im fussy about. I cant remember whether which end of the zoom range it showed up at but it
was bad. Shocked


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:14 pm    Post subject: Re: watch out for distortion Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
I found one at a flea market for $20 but got rid of it because it had very much geometric distortion
which Im fussy about. I cant remember whether which end of the zoom range it showed up at but it
was bad. Shocked

I forgot to answer your question. Id say stinker.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

may be that will help Tony

http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/23A.html

Wink


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neither nor, I'd say.

It's a really good lens, but it doesn't meet the hype that there has been around it.

I have (or rather my dad now has) a Soligor 60-300 which is as good a lens.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
Neither nor, I'd say.

It's a really good lens, but it doesn't meet the hype that there has been around it.

I have (or rather my dad now has) a Soligor 60-300 which is as good a lens.

It may be sharp and contrasty but it definately distorts for sure....


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My concluson was sell all Tamron, they are good lenses if you can't afford better. Best Tamrons are already expensive, 180mm f2.5 , 17mm f3.5 , 70-150 f2.8 soft, 350mm f5.6 mirror


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
My concluson was sell all Tamron, they are good lenses if you can't afford better. Best Tamrons are already expensive, 180mm f2.5 , 17mm f3.5 , 70-150 f2.8 soft, 350mm f5.6 mirror

I only have a few tamron but I will never sell my tamron sp 180/2.5. Its simply incredible.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
My concluson was sell all Tamron, they are good lenses if you can't afford better. Best Tamrons are already expensive, 180mm f2.5 , 17mm f3.5 , 70-150 f2.8 soft, 350mm f5.6 mirror


Yes, the best Tamrons are expensive.

But meanwhile I do have a set of Tamron Adaptall-2 lenses that offer an amazing price-performance-value:

Tamron 2.5/24
Tamron 2.5/28
Tamron 2.5/135
Tamron SP 8/500 (mirror)
Tamron 3.5/35-70
Tamron SP 2.8-3.8/35-80

With my Nikon- and M42-rear parts, this set offers all I need for my Nikon F or my Spotmatic, really.
And with my EOS-rear part it's a great set for the 5D.
Since the lenses are not particularly big, the NEX-rear part I have also is a useful thing. The Tamrons work well on a NEX.

With those FL-steps (24, 28, 35-80, 135, 500) I don't miss anything...


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
Attila wrote:
My concluson was sell all Tamron, they are good lenses if you can't afford better. Best Tamrons are already expensive, 180mm f2.5 , 17mm f3.5 , 70-150 f2.8 soft, 350mm f5.6 mirror

I only have a few tamron but I will never sell my tamron sp 180/2.5. Its simply incredible.


I sold mine 180mm after I bought Carl Zeiss Contax 180mm f2.8 I think a bit even better.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
Attila wrote:
My concluson was sell all Tamron, they are good lenses if you can't afford better. Best Tamrons are already expensive, 180mm f2.5 , 17mm f3.5 , 70-150 f2.8 soft, 350mm f5.6 mirror

I only have a few tamron but I will never sell my tamron sp 180/2.5. Its simply incredible.


I sold mine 180mm after I bought Carl Zeiss Contax 180mm f2.8 I think a bit even better.

Ill beleive it when I see it. My tamron is better than I even thought possible in a 180mm.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
Attila wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
Attila wrote:
My concluson was sell all Tamron, they are good lenses if you can't afford better. Best Tamrons are already expensive, 180mm f2.5 , 17mm f3.5 , 70-150 f2.8 soft, 350mm f5.6 mirror

I only have a few tamron but I will never sell my tamron sp 180/2.5. Its simply incredible.


I sold mine 180mm after I bought Carl Zeiss Contax 180mm f2.8 I think a bit even better.

Ill beleive it when I see it. My tamron is better than I even thought possible in a 180mm.

Laughing

Try both contax 180mm is common lens , if better you can keep it, if not you can sell it easily .


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
Attila wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
Attila wrote:
My concluson was sell all Tamron, they are good lenses if you can't afford better. Best Tamrons are already expensive, 180mm f2.5 , 17mm f3.5 , 70-150 f2.8 soft, 350mm f5.6 mirror

I only have a few tamron but I will never sell my tamron sp 180/2.5. Its simply incredible.


I sold mine 180mm after I bought Carl Zeiss Contax 180mm f2.8 I think a bit even better.

Ill beleive it when I see it. My tamron is better than I even thought possible in a 180mm.

Laughing

Try both contax 180mm is common lens , if better you can keep it, if not you can sell it easily .

I wont buy the contax because it wont adapt to my pentax k body, but just curious, what do they sell for used?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
I wont buy the contax because it wont adapt to my pentax k body, but just curious, what do they sell for used?


You can replace mount I think to Pentax in reversible process.

http://leitax.com/zeiss-contax-lens-for-pentax-cameras.html

May available on Ebay for less from Chinese vendors. My guess on price from 400-700 USD, depend from condition.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 60-300/3.8-5.4 is surprisingly good at the long end for a zoom. It seemed as sharp or sharper than the 300/5.6 prime!

As most old lenses and other adaptall lenses, it can be prone to CA issues, but if you work around them, it can provide good results.

Here are some samples:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/5013805514


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/5789224886/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/5798715191/

I reviewed it here, but I will have to try it out again on my MFT cameras - I found that some lenses work better on my MFT cameras than they were working on my Pentax SLRs, while some actually work worse.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have got two copies of this SP (I am selling one)
Thing is a very pleasant lens, very versatile, but as often with Tamron SP it has CAs...

I like the macro mode


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
The 60-300/3.8-5.4 is surprisingly good at the long end for a zoom. It seemed as sharp or sharper than the 300/5.6 prime!

As most old lenses and other adaptall lenses, it can be prone to CA issues, but if you work around them, it can provide good results.



this is somewhat unusual, ususally a telezoom is weak on the long end, especially when its a 5X telezoom.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
The 60-300/3.8-5.4 is surprisingly good at the long end for a zoom. It seemed as sharp or sharper than the 300/5.6 prime!

As most old lenses and other adaptall lenses, it can be prone to CA issues, but if you work around them, it can provide good results.



this is somewhat unusual, ususally a telezoom is weak on the long end, especially when its a 5X telezoom.


My experience is very sharp at ~280mm; not as sharp at 300mm. Imho, better than average 5x zoom for the time, still competes well with today's consumer 5x zooms. I found it a bit unwieldy -- long & no tripod support, but not heavy. Probably a great lens for motocross, etc..


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks to everyone and laurentiu, those are great samples! I would use it mostly at the long end at good distance from subject--like birds and wildlife on apsc. Is it good at infinity?

Its really cheap so i will probably buy one to experiment.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:
Thanks to everyone and laurentiu, those are great samples! I would use it mostly at the long end at good distance from subject--like birds and wildlife on apsc. Is it good at infinity?


That was exactly what I got my copy for (birds&wildlife on aps-c). I never used it at infinity though - only up to 20 meters or so. And I didn't get to use it much for birds either - couldn't get close enough to them Smile


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

my samples http://323i.e30.free.fr/galerie/MF/Tamron23A/


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you're set on experimenting with it Tony, and there's nothing wrong with finding out for yourself. But if you're anything like me, the 60-300 will sit on the shelf and hardly ever get used. It's a very reasonable lens as long zooms go, but it's huge and heavy and I always end up deciding it's too much to cart around. If I need 200+ FL I prefer to use the 103A 70-210 and the dedicated 1F 2xTC. With a tripod and remote release that combo gives very good results indeed.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
But if you're anything like me, the 60-300 will sit on the shelf and hardly ever get used. It's a very reasonable lens as long zooms go, but it's huge and heavy and I always end up deciding it's too much to cart around.


Yes, it is long and relatively heavy - it is not as heavy as the 80-200/2.8, but it is heavier than any modern plastic 70-300 zoom. It is not particularly easier to focus manually either because of this weight and the difficulty it raises for stabilization. I would sell mine too now, as I have finally found a nice 300mm lens that performs better than all these old 300mm lenses - the Tokina 300/6.3 mirror for MFT. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:56 pm    Post subject: Tamron SP #23A 60-300mm is no stinker Reply with quote

Hi!

It's not a sleeper--it's pretty well known--and it is definitely not a stinker. I have one of these model 23A lenses, and I took it as the long lens on a weekend trip to the oceanside. It worked well for me, particularly the macro function. Surprisingly usable, though focusing in macro mode ended up being via me moving the camera, rather than changing anything on the lens. I see some CA as well as PF, but little geometric distortion. It's quite manageable, and image quality is generally quite good. Yes, it's big, a bit unwieldy, but not actually so heavy. Mass is 870g, according to a cotemporaneous Tamron brochure. I prefer model 26A, 35-210, 875g, for this walk-around type use if it's the only lens I have with me on one of my m43 cameras, despite its mass... the range is better, the optics are similar or a bit better, but the macro function of the 26A isn't as good as the 23A, the handling isn't as smooth, and it doesn't go as long. There's no question the 23A is good, I'd definitely be happy to have bought it for $70 or more.

Cheers!

rbelyell wrote:
ive got a couple of tamron adaptall sp zooms and find theyre pretty good to very good. lately ive seen the 60-300 bbar selling for very cheap and i'm wondering if its a sleeper or a stinker? anyone with any personal experience? ive got the bbar 70-150 and 85-200 and like them, so comparisons are helpful too.
thanks
tony


Last edited by glasslover on Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:22 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:23 am    Post subject: Re: tamron sp 60-300mm: sleeper or stinker? Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:
ive got a couple of tamron adaptall sp zooms and find theyre pretty good to very good. lately ive seen the 60-300 bbar selling for very cheap and i'm wondering if its a sleeper or a stinker? anyone with any personal experience? ive got the bbar 70-150 and 85-200 and like them, so comparisons are helpful too.
thanks
tony


I doubt that this lens is any stellar performer.