[NT73]

Is it worth spending £99.00 (sterling) on one (Jessops special offer with 350d) or should I get something better.
It is not as far as I know the new DI model.
I am not going to be making money with it.

[slejhamer]

Haven't used one myself, but from what I've read it seems good if you're willing to stop down at least one stop. Some people complain of CA, but that's to be expected. Decent 1:2 macro ratio. Might be the best of the budget hyper-zoom lenses. I'm a fan of Tamron, having owned their 28-75 XR DI lens for a brief period. Still trying to figure out why I sold it.

Found this for you at another site:

The info:

I have served this same post up many times, you might find it helpful.

Here are several info links and my take on the inexpensive 75-300mm or 70-300mm landscape for Canon 1.6 crop DSLR bodies.

This class includes the following lenses:

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
Tamron AF 70-300mm f4-f5.6 LD Macro 1:2
Sigma AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG macro

User testimonials for the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=2
I could not find a Imatest review of this lens, but not many users are keen on this lens, especially above 200mm.

Imatest results for Tamron AF 70-300mm f4-f5.6 LD Macro 1:2
http://www.eospix.com/content-25.html

User testimonials for the Tamron AF 70-300mm f4-f5.6 LD Macro 1:2
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=43&page=1

Imatest results for Sigma AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG macro
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._456/index.htm
There are no user testimonials at FredMiranda.com for this lens.

All of these relatively inexpensive lenses have meaningful performance issues. But based on this info, and other info, I purchased the Tamron AF 70-300mm f4-f5.6 LD Macro 1:2.

It seems to be the only one that works over the entire focal length range with acceptable center and edge sharpness. Admittedly, you really have to really stop the Tamron down to get it to cooperate (at all focal lengths), but at some lens setting, even at 300mm you can get a significantly sharp image at both the center and the edge.

The Sigma has very good performance at 70 to 200mm, at almost any aperture, but at 300mm the edge sharpness is very marginal at all apertures. At 70 to 200mm it seems to be a better lens than the Tamron, especially at wider lens openings. But at or near 300mm the center is sharp, but there is no aperture that will give you even modest edge sharpness.

The Canon seems to provide a reasonable performance at 70 and 200, just not as good as the Sigma, but like the Sigma it is very marginal at 300mm.

Others will likely look at this same info and data and make a much different purchase decision, based on what might be important to them.

One other factor, the Tamron is by far the least expensive lens of the three, especially since the lens hood is included, that increases the value, and were compromises must be made, as with this class of lenses, value seems very appropriate to insert into the mix.

As a side note, moving up to the much more expensive Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens does not change this much.

Imatest results for the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...56is/index.htm and
http://www.eospix.com/content-28.html

User testimonials for the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=2

The much more expensive Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (note that this lens has a 70mm at the low end not a 75mm like the oter Canon IS lens) seems to be quite a different story, as everyone loves this lens and it has very good test results at all focal lengths. But it also costs 3 to 5 times that of the three cited at the begining of this post.

Imatest results for the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...56is/index.htm

User testimonials for the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=2

Enjoy!