How is Tair 300mm compared to other lenses?

[Eriksen]

Tair 300mm is a very affordable lens, but how does it perform compared to Canon, Nikon, Zeiss and other well known brands?

[marcusBMG]

Probably one of the best vintage MF 300's*, and one of the fastest. In considering whether it might be the lens for you, considerations like mount, weight, handling and price are actually more important IMO than pixel peeping comparisons with its contemporaries eg Pentacon 300mm f4, FD 300 f4, takumar/pentax 300mm f4, olympus 300mm f4.5 nikon 300mm f4.5 etc. All these lenses are good, an order of magnitude cheaper than, but inferior to, their modern contemporaries.
One suggestion I can make is that if you can find one at a good price, best price/performance+spec is a Tamron adaptall 300mm f2.8. No mount issues with this because of the swappable adaptall system.

* if you get a good one! Quality can vary a lot with ex soviet lenses. And they are notorious for "cowsnot" helical grease. Still haven't got round to TLC'ing my tair 300A.

[bychance]

'Cowsnot helical grease' now that sounds like a best seller in a bovine brothel

[Lloydy]

The Tair is very good, it's a sharp lens. But it is a big and heavy old thing, and the cow snot helical grease is awful, I have the 'normal' Tair and it's so stiff that it's barely useable. And it's not the easiest lens to take apart and re lube. I have tried lighter fuel on the helical but it's just a very short term fix.
I also have the Photosniper version with the focus wheel at the front of the lens, and this is far better, I think they used proper grease on this version and it's very easy to focus. I actually like the focus wheel on the front and find it very precise to use.

The alternative cheaper 300's are obviously the Tamrons, and I like the Tamron SP 670AU which although it is fairly slow f5.6 is so much lighter and easier to use than the f4.5 Tair, the Tamron isn't quite as sharp - but it's so close. And the better handling makes it easier to use, I get better pictures when hand holding with the Tamron.

I also have a Chinon 300 f5.6 that is smaller and lighter than the Tamron, and less than half the weight of the Tair, which is a very decent lens. If you shoot test charts and pixel peep it is certainly not as good as the Tamron or the Tair, but it's not a bad lens - slightly better than average I'd say.

[sergtum]

[Lloydy]

Yes, it's a great lens. That butterfly picture is superb, and shows just how good the Tair is. It's not an easy lens, but worth the effort to get shots as sharp as that.

[Oldhand]

Very good optically.
But big, heavy and very awkward in use - especially with its very stiff focus. This made it impossible to use for bird images as they would be gone before focus was achieved.
I had one but sold it when I couldn't face the prospect of dragging it around any more - it was too slow to focus for bird shots and as a landscape lens it was simply too heavy.
OH

[1kgcoffee]

I have two of the 'photosniper' tair-3. Only three elements but it's big and heavy and give what I like to call the vintage national geographic look, if you're into that. Very sharp stopped down after 5.6, with classic character but doesn't have the resolving power of something like L-glass. For the price you can't do better but it's a heavy lens

I also have an olympus 300mm which is much more compact but inferior. If you want a 300mm lens get the tair-3

Here are a few examples:
Canadian Rockies over Stampede Grounds by Aaron, on Flickr


Wooly Monkey, Rio Tahuayo by Aaron, on Flickr


Rio Tahuayo in a dugout canoe by Aaron, on Flickr


tair-3-5 by Aaron, on Flickr