Why this lens is not expensive, if you compare with another stores.... the difference is 300 usd!
148324
no HSM (hyper sonic motor) so it wont work with the d3000 series and d5000 series. if yours has a built in focus motor, then your good
2183426
Hi, Here is a good review from Ken Rockwell. This Nikon 18-300mm VR is a smaller, lighter version of the original 18-300mm VR. The original 18-300 was very good, so good in fact that I sold an image I made with it to McDonald's - and they are using it on a billboard. This new lens is as good, and is smaller, lighter and less expensive, so it's even better! My only real complaint about the original 18-300 was that it weighed a lot more than my camera, and this new 18-300 weighs ten ounces less! This new 18-300mm also offers Vibration Reduction (4 stops) and instant manual-focus override. It's very slightly slower at the 300mm end (f/6.3 versus f/5.6) than the older lens, and for ten ounces off my shoulder, that's nothing. By taking off 10 ounces, I now can carry this new lens everywhere I never bothered with the old 18-300. This new lens do everything, and it even does macro. At 300mm, it focuses to within just inches of the front of the lens.
1071778
One thing to consider is the wider wide-angle on the 300; 24mm vs. 28mm (equivalent). 4mm sounds trivial, but that is the difference between "sorta wide-angle" and truly wide-angle. To me, that makes the 300 worth the price difference, but your mileage may vary, as they say.
757260
Most prices I have seen for the Canon brand is around $650. If you can get it cheaper than this tameron by all means get it. I bought this for my Nikon it's a great lens I only bought it because it was a nice lens at a cheaper cost.
1864063
I'm a hobbyist. I'd like to upgrade from the 28-135mm to the 24-105mm, but I'm afraid of spending this much and getting a lens that isn't a "good copy." I'm just not expert enough to know if a lens needs to be recalibrated or something. Is it best for someone like me to buy local and ask the camera store to evaluate the lens sharpness? Or buy from someone like B&H; and ask them to evaluate it before they ship it to me? I resell a lot of lenses, too, and I wouldn't want to resell it some day and have someone complain it wasn't sharp.
1838718
M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for improvement. You will not be disappointed with the 35mm L. It is a very fine lens optically and mechanically. M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for... » Read More M. Clouse, I have both the 35mm L lens and the 50mm non-L lens. Like you, I love the 50mm lens but it is not sharp wide open. It sharpens up pretty well in the center by f/2.8, but the corners are soft even at f/5.6. The 35mm L lens is not in the same league. It is almost 4 times as expensive, built like a tank, has a completely different lens formula, ring USM focusing system rather than the old design in the 50mm, and is sharp at f/1.4 even out to the edge of the field. Like the 50mm, it gets a little sharper stopped down, but it is so sharp at f/1.4, there is not much room for improvement. You will not be disappointed with the 35mm L. It is a very fine lens optically and mechanically. « Show Less
1561298
when u r spending that kind of money, go for the L lens. It just makes more sense. The difference in optical quality is night and day.
355198
The reason this one is much cheaper is that it is a white box item. WB items are part of a kit that is being sold separately. For instance, this lens used to be part of a kit along the Canon 5D mkII (the kit costs less than the camera plus the lens when sold separately). Sometimes, this kits are split up, the camera is sold "body only" and the remaining lens is sold "lens only". The merchant gets more money than by selling the kit, and the customer pays less for each individual item on a white box than he would've paid for a lens meant and packed to be sold as a standalone item The reason this one is much cheaper is that it is a white box item. WB items are part of a kit that is being sold separately. For instance, this lens used to be part of a kit along the Canon 5D mkII (the kit costs less than the camera plus the lens when sold separately). Sometimes, this kits are split up, the camera is sold "body only" and the remaining lens is sold "lens only". The merchant gets more money than by selling the kit, and the customer pays less for each individual item on a white box than he would've paid for a lens meant and packed to be sold as a... » Read More The reason this one is much cheaper is that it is a white box item. WB items are part of a kit that is being sold separately. For instance, this lens used to be part of a kit along the Canon 5D mkII (the kit costs less than the camera plus the lens when sold separately). Sometimes, this kits are split up, the camera is sold "body only" and the remaining lens is sold "lens only". The merchant gets more money than by selling the kit, and the customer pays less for each individual item on a white box than he would've paid for a lens meant and packed to be sold as a standalone item « Show Less
876255
You are not looking at very expensive optics here, and you can't compare the performance of this lens to one costing thousands of dollars. That being said however, this lens will perform pretty well shooting the moon. You will find it hard to get perfect focus on infinity. If you have the extender, which will double your length, you will get even closer shots. Also, some people can't stand that this lens is all mechanical, just like the old 35 MM lenses. I love shooting with this thing. You can actually hand hold to get some very good bird shots. I hope this answers your question. Good luck. For the price, you should do okay!
1375143
if I were taking a photo across a regular type street. fairly well.. it will be clear but not seem that "close" some of the photos I have are very sharp . but I always felt like I would of liked to get closer.. my initial impression was I was disappointed . A 300 is better, but neither take a tele lens very well. if I had it over to do Id just go with a 600
963337
Outperforms the 70-300 VR in that is can zoom back to 28mm. That is why it is twice the price. It does not produce better images between 70 and 300mm. I would chose the 70-300 for the longest shots, and the 28-300 for shorter. Both lenses are as professional as the person using them, do not be impressed by reviewers waving wads of bills at you, because like a Violin, a Camera/lens is only as good as the user!
2205784
You're buying an expensive camera the lens is one on the most important parts don't skimp on it. If you want high quality pictures (which I assume you do since you're buying this camera) get a quality lens.
1773175
I think this is the best option without going nuts on budget, not cheap not so expensive. Distortion for Architectural is acceptable, obviously the more closer you are you will notice some, its not the 24mm or the zoom but believe me is sharp as hell, even more at f2.5 and f8 ... careful with a lil shift focus at night mostly at f4, other than that im super happy with this lens and i take it to travel a lot
518863
I have this lens, I used it for several months before upgrading to the 75-300 IS USM. If you don't want blurry pictures then you will have to spend the money on better tools. I take a lot of bird pictures and was able to track them using the non IS lens but it was very difficult and unless the pools where the competitions are held are in bright light you won't get sharp pictures. I did try using this one at our dance hall, (poor light for pictures) I eventually had to go to a 50 mm 1.4 that does great in low light. You wanting telephoto though, for the money the 75-300 IS at about $450 was the way that I decided to go and I really like what I get now. I have had my t2i for nearly two and a half years. Hope this helps you a little bit. If you want to see a few of my shots with the IS lens. My flickr page is lightninrod49.
1749968
No, but you can get an identical third party one for about $5 by searching amazon and/or eBay. You can't beat this lense for the $. Mine was better than expected at 300mm.
2099380
I think it could be a good deal, the lenses are pretty good, I would go for the 300. The 5100 seems to be a good body but you should look at refers or this could be a chance to step up to something better in a good "Like New" used. The 5100 is a good deal less than the new model. This is not a full 35mm sensor size, so there is some small compromise there. But in the end it will produce photos as sharp as you would need for 8x10 or there about. Poster size will always look grainy, but then you did not pay $5,000 for it.
1561300
So now I am wondering just what I am missing with regards to buying this lens for use on a DSLR like the Canon EOS 5D versus the much more expensive "EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM for EOS SLR"???