Promaster / Tamron

Not sure if this is appropriate, so moderator, please delete if not acceptable - I won't be offended.

I was searching for an alternative to spending a lot of money on Canon glass for a zoom. I purchased a Promaster/Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Initially, the lens seemed "OK." However, after one test shoot of a baseball game, it became very clear that the photos were of substandard quality. Most, if not all of the shots at the long end of the range (300mm) were extremely soft. The best shots fell into the 70-125mm range, and even those were sub-par.

Thankfully the store I bought the lens from took it back without an issue at all. Immediately went to B&H and purchased the 70-200L.

I just wanted to post this because you DO get what you pay for. Since I am semi-pro (I do make money from my images) I should have known better than to try the cheaper lens... but I saw some posts that indicated the Tamron's were ok. Not sure if this version was a cheaper variety of Tamron to be packaged under the Promaster name... so I guess that is my question. What is the real quality of Tamron, and does anyone know if they use cheaper optics, etc, when repackaging under a different name (i.e. Promaster)?

For some, the Promaster might have been fine... however, given the softness of the details, I can't see how any level professional could accept this quality. Also tons of chromatic abberations.

As for the 70-200L...... well.... one word. AWESOME! I'll gladly sacrifice the extra 100mm for crisp images anyday of the week. Besides, that's what the extenders are for!

Any thoughts or insight? I am really curious who has had good experiences with Tamron.
-GSL

I had a Tamron 70-300 zoom (not promaster) for a long time. Took good but not great photos, past 200mm was soft, and had chromatic aberration. However I liked the lens for three reasons - very lightweight, extraordinary close focus distance (near-macro, I think 2:1), and really low-cost. I replaced it with my Sigma 70-200 which is vastly better image quality, but a lot heavier.

I have since handled a friend's canon 75-300 and I think the Tamron is comparable, but lighter and less expensive.

I would recommend the Tamron as a good lens to start on, but not for a demanding pro. It has its place.

about the Tamron optics ....

... I have the 28-75/2.8 and it really sharp at most apertures + I think a lot over here on this site like it as well.