Had DSLR less than a week, Tamron 70-300..?

[PinkFloyd]

The Tamron 70-300 (if its the one that a well known shop bundle in with dslrs) is a load of rubbish. Slow to autofocus, not very sharp and lacks contrast even if you're only viewing it on the LCD on the back of the screen!
Worked in a store that sold them over xmas and had various customers looking and was appalled how bad it was :/

 

[JAMAL]

Am I right in saying the Standard Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AF wont Auto-Focus on the D3000?

I think you are right

He needs AF-S lenses, how about a 35mm 1.8 AF-S? about 160 quid?

 

[Vigoro]

The Tamron 70-300 (if its the one that a well known shop bundle in with dslrs) is a load of rubbish. Slow to autofocus, not very sharp and lacks contrast even if you're only viewing it on the LCD on the back of the screen!
Worked in a store that sold them over xmas and had various customers looking and was appalled how bad it was :/

It does indeed take its time to auto focus, i got one with my D3000 in that bundle for christmas, can only really use it on things that are still with auto focus, quicker trying to focus it myself with moving objects i have found

 

[greengiant]

I use a Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6 LD Di Macro on my Pentax K100D. I agree the lens isn't the worlds best quality, it does exhibit purple fringing in high contrast scenes, and is slow to autofocus (especially on my Pentax as it is screw drive).

However shopping around you can get the Tamron 70-300 for not much at all, mine was £56 new a couple of years back, so it's not a bad lens for the money. However it's not the worst lens I have used. That would be my Prinz Galaxy 400mm f/6.3 But that's another story....

 

[D.P.]

70-300s...

Hmm, the best starting point is the Sigma 70-300 Macro or the new OS version.
The Nikon 70-300 Vr is massivley better, so much better you cannot comapre the 2 fairly. The Nikon 70-300 VR gets praise fome the pro, who doe use, even on full full frame. (just make sure you have enough light, especially at 300mm where you need to stop doen to f/8).

I think a Nikon 55-200 VR is much better than the Sigma 70-300, although I haven-t used the former.

Get the 35mm 1.8 DX over the 50mm 1.8 . Not so much for the auto focus, but foe the handy FoV and super quality.

 

[BUFF]

70-300s...

Hmm, the best starting point is the Sigma 70-300 Macro

imo the Tamron is better than the non-APO Sigma with the APO Sigma being better than the Tamron (of course it's also in % terms substantially dearer).
& I'm not sure that the Sigmas are available with an in-lens motor for AF (which the D3000 needs for AF) - the Tamron definitely is.

 

[D.P.]

I forgot the Non-APO Sigmas. Definite;y the APO is the only Sigma bothering about.

The new Sigma lenses have HSM i think

 

[theNude]

taken on tamron 70-300 at 300mm hand held. not the greatest lens but it is capable of pictures like this which i'd rather not miss out on from not having it in my bag and it cost the same as a battery grip!!

 

[BUFF]

The new Sigma lenses have HSM i think

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/70-300mmAPO.htm - no mention of HSM that I can see.

 

[Berserker]

50mm, i'm lead to believe, is as close to human eye proportions (i believe its 52mm) as available. I dont know if that's a lie, though. What you see with your eyes is more or less what you'll get through the nifty fifty.

Don't know if that's true or not. Even if it is, that only works on a full-frame body. Apply crop factor for a Nikon DX format body (of which the D3000 is one), and you're at 75mm.

 

[BUFF]

believe that ~42mm in 35mm/FF terms approximates the human eye view - iirc there was some economic/manufacturing reason why they originally used 50mm & it kind of stuck.

 

[D.P.]

believe that ~42mm in 35mm/FF terms approximates the human eye view - iirc there was some economic/manufacturing reason why they originally used 50mm & it kind of stuck.

This is correct.

Although the eact definition is little strange, sinc ethe human Fov is quite wide, but only a small part has a high resolution, the rest is peripheral. I think the 42mm refers to the high resolution part, of which we are most concisous of.


50mm was just a simplified design decision. Plus the slight extra crop is not a bad idea in letting the subjects fill more of the frame.

A 35mm (on full frame), is slightly wider, but has the bonus of letting you crop down to the "naural FoV".


This natural 40-50mm range can be quite broing though. It neither brings focus ona particular subject nor gives dramatic wide angles nor can photograph larger structures. And indoors it may be limited unless you can get up close for a portrait.