Tamron 300mm f/2.8 ... should I buy?

<p>So someone has recently offered me a Tamron 300mm f/2.8 for $450 bucks. It's the older AF version ... the one that doesn't like to focus automatically on DSLRs, and hunts like crazy. But the metering works fine and I can control aperture with the camera, even with a teleconverter. Plus, you know, 300 f/2.8. I know it's a bargain and a half. BUT. I currently have almost zero use for it, especially considering the weight - 6 pounds! I can take pretty much every photo I want to take with my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, 50 1.4, and 80-200 2.8. I don't currently need a 300mm 2.8, and I've been trying to put money aside to upgrade to a nicer car in about a year.</p>

<p>The question is ... is this such a good deal that I'd be stupid not to take it? Could I sell in in six months and get my money back if it came to that?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I currently have almost zero use for it, especially considering the weight - 6 pounds!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO you have already answered your own question. $450 cash in hand should be a lot more useful than some 6-pound paperweight that you may have a hard time selling. BTW, I happen to own a Nikon 300mm/f2.8 AF-S, which is a very useful sports and sometimes wildlife lens to me.</p>

<p>I've owned both the Nikon 300/2.8 and Tamron 300/2.8. Both fine lenses for what they're intended. AF IMHO is useless for this type of lens (I've owned the manual versions). Unless you have a use for it, take a pass...no sense in tying up your cash, especially if you're hard strapped.</p>

<p>Well, to me, AF (and therefore AF-S) is critical for the 300mm/f2.8. E.g. this is my favorite birds in flight lens and AF is a must.</p>

<p>Zack, the answer is simple: It depends on the Tamron's performance at f2.8 If it is razor sharp, take it and run. And if the glass is pristine and the lens solid mechanically, run and don't look back.<br>

<br /> I have the Nikon 300 2.8 AF-S I version. The autofocus on the Nikon can accurately track basketball players and track and field athletes with the F100 film and D300 digital bodies. I also have had good image tracking with the N90s.<br>

<br /> Still, I use the lens 50% of the time for portraiture. Furthermore, the Tamron 300 2.8 may have better autofocusing and tracking with a newer Nikon fbody such as the F6 and D300, D700, etc. If the lens is razor sharp at 2.8, you have an optic to work with.<br>

<br />I own 30 lenses. My NIKON 300 F2.8 afs version I lens is one of the most amazing optics I own.<br>

<br /> All the images on this page with the 300 2.8 with 1.4 teleconverter, shot wide open http://andrenoble.com/Sizdeh-be-dar/Sizdeh-be-dar.html</p>

<p>Shun-</p>

<p>I did sort of answer my question, but not really. Almost everything I shoot is 4-15 feet away or is a landscape, with the occasional exception of a few sport events, which the 80-200 is more than adequate enough for, considering how often I need to use it. I can talk to you forever about which 50mm lens is best on what setting and for APS or FX sensors since I'm pretty much married to mine, but I don't have enough experience with big lenses to say which ones are sleepers and which ones you should let go. I guess I was asking less, "Do I want this?" and more, "Is this the sort of lens that I should just get now while its a good deal, because I'll want it later or can always sell it for more?"</p>

<p>Thanks for the help all. The (possible) seller is a good friend, and he's letting me use the lens for a few days to try it out. He sounds like he may even be willing to let me keep it for the better part of two weeks, so I can take it on vacation to Maine with me, which would be a fantastic test. After a little research it looks like they usually run $700 in that condition ... which doesn't mean it's a 'must buy', but does mean that I could at least get my money back if it ends up being something I don't use.</p>

<p>I think I'll need to test it out. I think if I can accurately focus it and move it around somewhat quickly on a tripod, and I don't end up needing a mirror lockup (which my current camera lacks) to get good shots, I'll go with it. I can afford it without tapping into my 'in case' fund, and that's the important thing. If it ends up being too much work to operate, forget it. I have a very Film Noir shooting style, and I'm not about to shell out the better part of five hundred bucks for something that requires massive effort to cram into that pigeonhole. I mean, I could get another back for my Hasselblad and go on half a vacation for that price. Or take my wonky, but well-loved, Saab off the road a few months earlier, which is the current plan.</p>

<p>God, I'm going to miss that car when she finally goes.</p>

I have the Tamron 300 and the nikon 80-200 I had my Tamron fixed so that

the AF work right

I find that this lens is as good or maybe a little better at f/2.8 then the Nikon

80-200

<p>Now that's a thought Michael. I usually prefer older optics anyway, since I shoot primarily black and white, and I find the newer coatings tend to give me too much smoothness and the occasional blown out highlight. I've actually found my manual 50 1.4 to be better than the 1.4G for just that reason, assuming I'm able to take my time. The viewfinder on my D70 is a little dodgy, so it's not exactly run-and-gun operation.</p>

<p>If you don't mind my being nosy, where did you send the lens and what did it cost? Did they just replace the AF chip, or is it a whole new system? I assume its not an AF-S now, so focusing speed is determined by the camera? Also, how important do you find mirror lockup and a cable release to be when using this lens? My tripod and head are rated for 11 pounds, but it's a Manfrotto, and they rate pretty conservatively. I definitely need it when using my plastic Tamron teleconverter, but I'm not sure if it's shutter movement or just lack of experience that is preventing me from getting crystal clear images without the teleconverter. The shots looked great at 1/500th of a second and f/5.6, but as I lost light last night and went to f/2.8 and 1/125th there was some loss of clarity, and I'm not sure if that's an aperture issue, movement, or just plain operator error.</p>

<p>Zack<br>

I sent the lens back to Tamron to have the work done. They had to replace the CPU chip. While they had it the also cleaned and collimated the lens. If I remember right it cost about $400 and took them about a week. Now if I had been the original owner they would have done the update for free.<br>

No the did not update it to AFS<br>

Most of the shooting I do with this lens is of equestrian events. For me at one of the shows a slow shutter speed is 1/500th. I will shoot it handheld or off of a monopod. Handheld gets a little old after a while but the 300 is lighter then my other event lens( A 120-300 f/2.8).<br>

I bet if you can keep the shutter speed up you will be happy with the results from this lens</p>

<p>Michael</p>

<p>Thanks for chiming in guys. I took the lens on vacation with me, and I love it. Buuuuut not enough to actually buy it. Like I thought, I just couldn't make it work out for what I like to shoot. It might have been worth it anyway, but it turns out my teleconverter is woefully inadequete, and the tripod is borderline once I stick a 1.4 TC on that lens. I mean technically the tripod supports it well enough to take the shots I want to take, but I'm not taking any longer exposures with it.</p>

<p>So even though the lens is a great price, once I upgrade all that other crap so it works the way I want it to, it's not such a good deal anymore. But for what he's asking, I'm sure someone will buy it soon.</p>

<p>Thanks again all!</p>

<p>Oh, and Michael ... I see what you mean about being a good sport lens. The copy I used shows a little softness wide open, but at f/4 with a TC it's effectly a tack-sharp 400-someodd 5.6, and that's nothing to scoff at. If I was shooting outdoor sports with it like you do, I probably wouldn't have even thought twice about it.</p>