bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

I bought some used camera equipment and included was a quantaray 70-300 1:4-5.6 LD. The exif data says it’s a tamron so I assume quantaray rebranded it.

Here’s my question, anyone else have experience with this really lousy lens or do I just have a real stinker? Regardless of which Nikon body I use, the center if so-so sharp. The right side of the image is noticeably soft and the left 25-30% is quite blurry. Not just soft but blurry. It’s bad at 70mm and really bad at 300mm. I know it’s a cheap lens, but the pronounced difference between right and left leaves me wondering. Any opinions or experience out there? Thanks!

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Clearly your own testing reveals lots of flaws. Now the question is whether to throw good money after bad and see about having it repaired. My advice: walk away now.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

Yeah, good advice. I’m looking at a Nikon lens. I figure that lens on the old D50 Nikon will be good to let the grandkids use when I take them on vacation. If it gets dropped or soaked in soda or ice cream, no great loss. Thanks!

User ID

I infer the kids have no phones of their own. True ?

Wkndr Loc: Sitka, Alaska

"capability to provide beautifully blurred backgrounds to highlight the main subject"

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/quantaray-70-300mm-f4-5-6-ld-macro-1-2.html#ixzz7JvkU7BfD

A possibility?

agillot

Iuse at time a quantary 28 / 90 that came with a D300 , it is listed on the down load as a Sigma .i have heard that this issue of quantary is better then the Sigma . the reason is that quantary requested a better coating on lens ???? .is this truth ???? . I see nothing wrong with pictures . The other lens that came with camera is a 70 300 Tamron . i think this D300 originally was sold as a kit . Got it as a gift second hand years ago .that was the first D300 sold in san diego , still work fine , over 100k clicks .

RJW Loc: Oregon

Quantaray 70-300mm F4-5.6 LD Macro 1:2. Pentax Mt. I bought this lens back in the 90's from Ritz Camera for $99 on sale. It never was that good on the Pentax cameras. Purple and Green fringing in bright light. I now use it on an Olympus Micro four thirds camera and it's a whole different experience. Adequate sharpness, good contrast, nice bokeh and bold colors. Since I'm only shooting through the center of the lens with the small sensor, it performs much better. Granted it's not on par with a high quality zoom but for everyday shooting and some good editing, some nice pleasing images can be rendered. First image RAW through DxO PhotoLab4 to JPEG. Second through NIK software and Luminar AI. (Download for best viewing). RJW

(Download)


(Download)

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Some were OK, some not so much. Caveat is price point and who made it - they were never very expensive, so one knew the trade-off going in, if you got one that was sharp for film in some of it's range, you did good. I have one (also bought in the 90's) that is a Sigma model, 70-300 LDO...it was decent with my Minolta 7000, and good with early Sony digitals (like A300 era). I know it will work (AF and all) with my A37 and A58, and is better on APS-C than FF, it also works, fully functional with LA-EA2 on Nex 6 and A6000.....I have not actually shot with it in a very loooong time, but this has me thinking I'll have to dig it out and slap it on a 20 to 24 MP digital and see what I get.

What I do remember is that it was somewhat sharper than it's Sigma cousin when I tried the two side by side - at a Fortunoff store when I lived on Long Island in the 70's, which is how I ended up with the Q. It (if memory serves me) on sale and about half the price of the Sigma 70-300, and that sealed the deal. They were never "top kit", never will be, but once you learned it's shortcomings, you could adjust your way to decent shots.

I see various iterations on Ebay for a song and a dance, very inexpensive, usually the lens isn't much more than the cost to ship!!!! I also see a lot of old Minolta zooms, if you have A-mount or E-mount with good adapter you can pick some nice old lenses for cheap, that will fully auto focus and report data, for someone with the right body, the Minoltas can be a great deal.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Ignore the second paragraph, I was confusing the history with another lens, old brainfart..

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

Oh yes, the purple fringing is quite obvious with snow scenes. It would have been a great lens to have had at Woodstock. Who needs LSD when you have Quantaray?

And no, the daughter doesn’t think that small kids need cell or smart phones. Good girl! Besides, I’d rather teach the kids what I consider real photography rather than pop off some blurry snapshots with a phone. Last year for Christmas my kids got me a smart phone. They figured I needed to upgrade from my 14 year old Nokia. And yes, I find the camera feature handy at times. But Mr Nikon still does most of my photos. I see the difference between a smart phone and a dslr like the difference between seeing Mt Rushmore on a computer screen or actually being there. You get the general idea with one but the flavor of the moment with the other.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

I love the “beautifully blurred background “ reference. I think I’ll change the name from quantaray to knothole because that’s what it’s like looking through.

On the duck photos my lens would have delivered a more or less sharp head but it’s left wing feathers would have been blurry. The lens doesn’t appear to have been dropped or used as a hammer but I suspect that the assembly person hurriedly threw it together before going out drinking with friends. Or put it together after drinking with friends.

delder Loc: Maryland

This post gives me some hope.
Many years ago I Bought a F4004 @ Ritz Camera kitted with a pair of Quantery Lenses. A couple of years ago Went looking for a DSLR to use with those lenses and lucked out with a [used] D3100 kit with 2 DX lenses. Didn't bother too much with the Quantery but since you mentioned the effects of the Crop Factor, think I will give it another try!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

I got a Nikon 70-300 AF 1:4-5.6G. No Image stabilization but the image quality is great. It’s an old lens but the image quality it far superior to the Quantaray-Tamron I have. Image is sharp all over and greater contrast. I suspect my Q-T is an exceptionally poor example because if all were like mine tamron would never sell another lens. Like I said, the Q-T will serve kid duty.