remember me Forgot your password?
Sign in    Registration                 We’re creating the largest and most complete database of photographic lenses in the world! Join us!
All About Photographic Lenses.
Specifications, comparison, reviews,
MTF-charts for lenses by Canon,
Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus,
Sigma, Tamron, Carl Zeiss, etc.

Promaster AF 70-300 mm f/ 4.0-5.6 EDO LD Macro Lens

Do you like a good instrumental music?
Listen to new beautiful music from composer Sergei Borodin. Click HERE...


Promaster AF 70-300 mm f/ 4.0-5.6 EDO LD Macro lens

Format: 35mm SLR

Type: Zoom lens

Focusing: Auto Focus (AF)

Lens mounts: Canon EF, EF-S, Sony A / Minolta A, Nikon F (FX, DX), Other mount

Optical design: 13 elements in 9 groups

Features: Macro lens
User reviews (1)

Photos (0)

Tests (0)

Owners (1)

Views (3462)

Average price:


Focal lengthMax. apertureMin. apertureBladesMin. Focus (m.)Filter Ø (mm.)Weight (gr/oz)Length (mm/in)
70mm - 300mmf/4.0 - f/5.6f/3291.562435/15,3116.5/4,6

Additional information:


The Promaster AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EDO LD Macro is a telephoto zoom lens for 35 mm SLR autofocus cameras.

Max. magnification ratio 1:2 (at 300 m), closest focusing distance 1.5 m, 0.95 m in macro mode.


Posted by: Ugin242   Date of publication: 15.03.2013

Mechanical quality3.003
Optical quality2.673
Pricing / Value3.502
Overall lens rating

Embed to Blog (HTML) Embed to Forum (BBcode)

Owner reviews: Promaster AF 70-300 mm f/ 4.0-5.6 EDO LD Macro

JDRoest 26.12.2014 23:49:33
Period of use: 1 year


It has no strengths. Not even price.


Weaknesses? Everything.


In the event you don't like this, it can't even be used as a hammer.

This lens is dreadful. I picked one up on Ebay where even the seller was apologising and offering a 100% refund if you thought it was bad. $50. I over paid. It was bad, but I never bothered with the seller. Anyone selling this obviously needed the money.

I did not buy this for it's optical qualities but rather to check on something for my business as I've never really owned a long lens, so wasn't too disappointed by it's complete lack of optical quality. To be honest, I shouldn't use the words "optical quality" in a sentence to describe this, I should simply say "it's complete lack" and be done with it.

And to call this a lens is disrespecting anything else out there. It is unbelievably bad.

You know the results will be bad by simply looking through the viewfinder. It looks bad in a 1" screen. That is a sign that all is not well. Forget pixel peeking. Forget explaining what bad optics look like to the wife - just show her!

Maybe I just had a bad copy. I doubt it.