I have the stabilized version of this lens, but not the macro one. You should find reviews to check for the optical quality, because when I bought mine the non-stabilized (but also non-macro) lens had pretty bad reputation, while the construction and optical quality of the stabilized model (VC) was very good. This may not really answer your question, but I just wanted to point out the optical quality issue to you. I have no idea whether the macro lens is closer to the non-stabilized or to the stabilized model, so may be something to check.
For macro use? I can't precisely answer, because I definitely can't use mine for macro purpose, but I would rather not choose a zoom, rather a 90 mm for instance. Also it might be hard to hand-stabilize for macro (I can't do it with mine), but I let it to better experts to confirm this. Now, the choice depends on what you want to do with it (versatility), how many lenses you want to have and your budget of course.
Hope it helps, although I know I did not exactly answered the question, just food for thought! :-)
@scatcat I have a minimal budget, that's why a lens that could be used for macro and zoom appealed to me.
I'm not a professional, but obviously I want reasonable optical quality. Perhaps I should have a look at the stabilised model then...
I am not a fan of variable-aperture lenses, as a lot of people here can tell you. Even when I first got started in photography, I didn't buy these lenses because it really isn't worth even the small amount of money.
Here is the main problem you'll have with this lens: shooting at 300mm will force an aperture of f/5.6. That's a pretty small aperture. On a fully sunny day, shooting at 400 ISO, you'll be able to get as fast as 1/200 at f/5.6 That means you won't be shooting sports with this lens, and you won't be able to freeze the action of birds flying or kids playing.
If all you want is to use these photos online, the sharpness will be good enough. However, you won't be able to make 11x16 or 20x30 prints from this lens, you won't be able to print in a newspaper or magazine, and you won't be able to crop more than 75% of the photo.
It's the nature of the beast. Variable-aperture lenses use small glass and many moving parts, which means they aren't fast or sharp.
@minxymissk yes the budget is a key question in this case. If you can go in a shop to try it. You will at least have an idea on how easy it is to handle, its weight, feeling when you turn the rings, etc...When I chose mine I was not planning to have this one, but when I tested the other ones (a Sigma and a Nikon), I took my decision! The Nikon was better, professional quality but definitely out of my budget, and when looking closer at the optical performance, the Tamron was not so different and really worthwile!!! I think Sigma also has a 70-300 macro, check it as well.
@jasonbarnette So really I should take my time and save for a decent one rather than a not very good lens that's trying to be jack of all trades? I suppose my problem is that I am feeling limited with my lens, I can't zoom and I can't really take decent macro shots. I'm impatient I guess is what I'm trying to say :) I have discovered this wonderful hobby and want to stretch myself, but can't right now!
@scatcat My budget is very restricted, hence the appeal of this one, but as Jason has mentioned do I really want to spend money on a lens I will replace probably sooner rather than later?
Hmmm I don't do patience and saving up very well lol!
@minxymissk Well, first of all, what do you want to do with your new lens? Buying a Jack-of-All-Trades lens is like telling people in the ER they can only use one tool to save a life. Photography is many tools, each for a different purpose.
And yes, it is expensive. This is where you have to make a decision: spend a little money on a lens only 50% as good as the one you'll buy later, or save for a lot of money on a lens you'll buy once.
For my money, I just bought the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro. This is an amazing lens. It is so sharp it's just plain silly, has a minimum focus distance of 12" which at 150mm is pretty darn good, and also gives me a good telephoto range. I bought it new for $750, but you can probably find a used one pretty good, too.
Also, don't forget you can get older, manual-focus lenses for much cheaper. Scour eBay and Craigslist before making any final decisions.
@jasonbarnette Thank you for your advice. At the moment, I'm still learning, I only got my DSLR in January and am still feeling my way around the camera and what I love to take photos of - hence my reluctance to spend a huge amount of money on lenses straight away!
Looking at ebay, the Sigma lens is around £600, so some saving required! Thanks again.
@minxymissk But you didn't answer my question, slacker! What do you wanna do with a new lens? Wide angle, telephoto, macro, sports, wildlife, paparazzi? If you are paparazzi, I'll probably just stop talking now.
@jasonbarnette :) Sorry, I love taking landscapes, so wide angle would be good, but I also love macro shots, which I've not been able to really take so far (Definitely not paparazzi!).
Note the EXIF data for the shot listed above. On a sunny day, at 200 ISO, even stepped down a bit, there is plenty of light for 1/500s or faster shutter speeds. Granted the AF is slow and I'd certainly never consider this a lens for photographing anything that moves...but if the reach is what you want and you use it with care (monopod or tripod as required too) you'll get the shots.
Many people are put off by critique of a lens by people used to (and who can afford) much better gear. Don't be put off. Used carefully you can get perfectly good shots with a lesser lens.
@minxymissk I have the Tamrom AF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 LD macro....Now I'm not sure if this is close to that one but I can't stand this lens...The photo I have of the mountains was taken with both this and my kit 18-55 lens and the kit lens did better. If you want crisp pics, I doubt this is it. Also the photo I have of the Shelby dirt pit, I couldn't even post a photo of it with my 75-300mm because it sucked, but the one I posted was with my 50mm, much farther away then my 75-300, and from a moving vehicle Sorry, I know I have no technical advice....but my opinion, I would save up to buy a better one.
@minxymissk Also, I bought it for work so I could do sports candids....even in day light I couldn't get enough light in my shots or any shots that were not grainy, big time. Needless to say, I cannot use this for work now because it doesn't produce good enough photos. Again, I have the 75-300 so I'm not sure the difference.
@arrayofblues Thank you - I haven't yet taken much in the way of moving shots, I prefer my subjects still :) @nodecaff Thank you for your examples, they do look good!
@minxymissk I just bought the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 lens because I thought it would make a great landscape lens. Wrong. The best landscape lens I have right now is my 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8. The 50mm is just $135 brand spanking new, and it's so sharp its silly. It doesn't always take lots of money to own good glass.
@nodecaff I couldn't disagree with your comment more "Many people are put off by critique of a lens by people used to (and who can afford) much better gear."
I started out with a Nikon D40, 18-55 f/3.5-4.5 and 70-300 f/4-5.6 lens just like everybody else. I don't critique a lens like this cause I've got something better.
I critique a lens like this because I have owned it, used it, got something better and saw the difference. Yeah, it takes money and I am starting to afford better gear now, but why waste money on something that can't handle the task?
It all comes down to what you want to do with these photos. Using them online will probably be fine. But the lack of sharpness and clarity in this lens means you won't be printing in newspapers or magazines, you won't be making posters, and you probably can't make any prints larger than 8x10 without the softness looking very bad.
@jasonbarnette I have the 50mm f1.8 it's the only lens I have at the moment, and much as I love the photos I get from it, I feel like I need a lens that at the very least will zoom in. We visited a zoo recently and I just couldn't get the closer shots I wanted. I guess right now I literally just take photos of things that interest me - there isn't an area I want to focus on (such as macro, action etc) - does that make sense? I don't want to spend a lot of money on specialist lenses, I want one or two that will do a few jobs for me, but I want them to do it reasonably well. I DO want the quality, I love some of the photos I've taken, and would like to be able to have larger prints of them if I want them. Again...thank you for taking the time to respond, I have a lot to learn :)
@minxymissk In that case, I would recommend the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. It is a very sharp zoom lens, and one which I still use. When shooting photojournalism and I don't know what to expect, I use this zoom lens. Costs about $300 new, so give that a check.
@minxymissk I agree about the fact to choose a lens of acceptable quality, even if it means being patient. With a low quality lens, you will be satisfied in the very beginning due to novelty effect, then quickly disappointed! To me, a good lens (and camera) is one that still allows me to progress because I did not reach the technical limits of the material. If I can't do what I want because the material can't do it, it's time to change (well, ok, to a certain extent because I could give you the counter-example with a P&S that is technically limited but still allows me to experiment new things!!!). As you say you want more flexibility, then the lens suggested by Jason could be a good compromise. A constant f/2.8 zoom lens is very nice too!
@jasonbarnette You make a fair point Jason but we'll have to agree to disagree.
It's horses for courses. You make a good case for those aspiring to sell or publish their shots. In that case investment in good glass does pay dividends.
But, many people only want to take pictures for their own personal use and/or to share online. Those images may never be printed at larger than 6x4. For these people a cheaper lens works fine.
One final point I want to take issue with. Softness, perceived or real. I think it's misleading many prospective owners of this lens when you make a sweeping generalisation that this lens is soft. My copy of the lens isn't 'soft' at all. Granted, I can get soft/blurred (call them what you will) shots but they are entirely my fault. Test shots with a tripod show perfectly sharp results from this lens...and likely many other cheap (considered by many to be inferior) lenses.
Is it as good as 'L' glass? No. I have owned 17-40mm f4 'L' and 70-200mm f4 'L' and 100-400 IS 'L' and they are very nice lenses. I'd love to have those three in my bag again but that's over 2 grand (in £ Sterling) of glass!
My point is simply this - people should not be put off buying modest gear just because there is something better out there. Many people are entirely satisfied with the results they get from such equipment.
And never forget the old maxim - "A poor workman always blames his tools."
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
For macro use? I can't precisely answer, because I definitely can't use mine for macro purpose, but I would rather not choose a zoom, rather a 90 mm for instance. Also it might be hard to hand-stabilize for macro (I can't do it with mine), but I let it to better experts to confirm this. Now, the choice depends on what you want to do with it (versatility), how many lenses you want to have and your budget of course.
Hope it helps, although I know I did not exactly answered the question, just food for thought! :-)
I'm not a professional, but obviously I want reasonable optical quality. Perhaps I should have a look at the stabilised model then...
Here is the main problem you'll have with this lens: shooting at 300mm will force an aperture of f/5.6. That's a pretty small aperture. On a fully sunny day, shooting at 400 ISO, you'll be able to get as fast as 1/200 at f/5.6 That means you won't be shooting sports with this lens, and you won't be able to freeze the action of birds flying or kids playing.
If all you want is to use these photos online, the sharpness will be good enough. However, you won't be able to make 11x16 or 20x30 prints from this lens, you won't be able to print in a newspaper or magazine, and you won't be able to crop more than 75% of the photo.
It's the nature of the beast. Variable-aperture lenses use small glass and many moving parts, which means they aren't fast or sharp.
@scatcat My budget is very restricted, hence the appeal of this one, but as Jason has mentioned do I really want to spend money on a lens I will replace probably sooner rather than later?
Hmmm I don't do patience and saving up very well lol!
And yes, it is expensive. This is where you have to make a decision: spend a little money on a lens only 50% as good as the one you'll buy later, or save for a lot of money on a lens you'll buy once.
For my money, I just bought the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro. This is an amazing lens. It is so sharp it's just plain silly, has a minimum focus distance of 12" which at 150mm is pretty darn good, and also gives me a good telephoto range. I bought it new for $750, but you can probably find a used one pretty good, too.
Also, don't forget you can get older, manual-focus lenses for much cheaper. Scour eBay and Craigslist before making any final decisions.
Looking at ebay, the Sigma lens is around £600, so some saving required! Thanks again.
However, as others have stated, it has limitations. However [again], you can absolutely work within the lens's limitations and get nice shots!
Some examples:-
http://365project.org/nodecaff/365/2011-04-26 (macro mode)
http://365project.org/nodecaff/365/2011-04-24
http://365project.org/nodecaff/365/2011-04-23 (macro mode)
http://365project.org/nodecaff/365/2011-04-12 (note EXIF - 200 ISO, f6.3, 1/640)
http://365project.org/nodecaff/365/2011-03-19
Note the EXIF data for the shot listed above. On a sunny day, at 200 ISO, even stepped down a bit, there is plenty of light for 1/500s or faster shutter speeds. Granted the AF is slow and I'd certainly never consider this a lens for photographing anything that moves...but if the reach is what you want and you use it with care (monopod or tripod as required too) you'll get the shots.
Many people are put off by critique of a lens by people used to (and who can afford) much better gear. Don't be put off. Used carefully you can get perfectly good shots with a lesser lens.
Just my 2 cents. :)
@nodecaff Thank you for your examples, they do look good!
@nodecaff I couldn't disagree with your comment more "Many people are put off by critique of a lens by people used to (and who can afford) much better gear."
I started out with a Nikon D40, 18-55 f/3.5-4.5 and 70-300 f/4-5.6 lens just like everybody else. I don't critique a lens like this cause I've got something better.
I critique a lens like this because I have owned it, used it, got something better and saw the difference. Yeah, it takes money and I am starting to afford better gear now, but why waste money on something that can't handle the task?
It all comes down to what you want to do with these photos. Using them online will probably be fine. But the lack of sharpness and clarity in this lens means you won't be printing in newspapers or magazines, you won't be making posters, and you probably can't make any prints larger than 8x10 without the softness looking very bad.
I'll add it to my wish list!
It's horses for courses. You make a good case for those aspiring to sell or publish their shots. In that case investment in good glass does pay dividends.
But, many people only want to take pictures for their own personal use and/or to share online. Those images may never be printed at larger than 6x4. For these people a cheaper lens works fine.
One final point I want to take issue with. Softness, perceived or real. I think it's misleading many prospective owners of this lens when you make a sweeping generalisation that this lens is soft. My copy of the lens isn't 'soft' at all. Granted, I can get soft/blurred (call them what you will) shots but they are entirely my fault. Test shots with a tripod show perfectly sharp results from this lens...and likely many other cheap (considered by many to be inferior) lenses.
Is it as good as 'L' glass? No. I have owned 17-40mm f4 'L' and 70-200mm f4 'L' and 100-400 IS 'L' and they are very nice lenses. I'd love to have those three in my bag again but that's over 2 grand (in £ Sterling) of glass!
My point is simply this - people should not be put off buying modest gear just because there is something better out there. Many people are entirely satisfied with the results they get from such equipment.
And never forget the old maxim - "A poor workman always blames his tools."