Zoom lens for Canon 300D - Tamron/Canon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Siddhartha Jain, Jan 15, 2005.

  1. Hi,

    Looking for a zoom lens with atleast 300mm at the zoom end for my Canon
    300D. Initially, I had made up my mind about the Tamron 70-300mm LD but
    then noticed that the Canon 75-300mm has USM. Quickly went thru reviews
    and realised that the Canon 100-300mm has true USM (ring-USM vs
    micro-USM) and is optically rated better than the Canon 75-300mm. Some
    even compared it to its "L" series sibling, the 100-400mm L.

    Anyways, a few more reviews down the line, some opined that the Tamron
    28-300mm XR is sharper at the 300mm end than the Canon 100-300mm. The
    photodo tests rate the Canon 100-300mm USM at 2.4 while the Tamron
    28-300mm is rated at 2.6.

    Then there are a few old Canon 100-300mm f/5.6 lenses floating around
    at eBay.

    What I liked about the Canon 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 is that it has USM so
    AF should be faster, manual focus over-ride in AF mode and rear
    focussing element.

    I would like to hear comments on:
    1. Optical quality comparison of the three
    2. Build quality
    3. Suitability for 300D sensor, that is, how bad does a lens have to be
    before the 300D sensor can start telling the difference?

    I am open to used lenses and my upper spending limit is US$200.
    Thanks,

    Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Siddhartha Jain

    YoYo Guest

    Go with the Canon, the 100-300 (not L version) has a slightly better
    reputation then the 75-300 lens. However for your price range I would go
    with the 75-300 it really is a decent lens for the price, but both are no
    comparison at all to L glass like the 100-400 f/4-5.6L (especially in price
    $200 vs. $1500). Stick with Canon after all you spent for a Canon digital.

    Good Luck

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Looking for a zoom lens with atleast 300mm at the zoom end for my Canon
    > 300D. Initially, I had made up my mind about the Tamron 70-300mm LD but
    > then noticed that the Canon 75-300mm has USM. Quickly went thru reviews
    > and realised that the Canon 100-300mm has true USM (ring-USM vs
    > micro-USM) and is optically rated better than the Canon 75-300mm. Some
    > even compared it to its "L" series sibling, the 100-400mm L.
    >
    > Anyways, a few more reviews down the line, some opined that the Tamron
    > 28-300mm XR is sharper at the 300mm end than the Canon 100-300mm. The
    > photodo tests rate the Canon 100-300mm USM at 2.4 while the Tamron
    > 28-300mm is rated at 2.6.
    >
    > Then there are a few old Canon 100-300mm f/5.6 lenses floating around
    > at eBay.
    >
    > What I liked about the Canon 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 is that it has USM so
    > AF should be faster, manual focus over-ride in AF mode and rear
    > focussing element.
    >
    > I would like to hear comments on:
    > 1. Optical quality comparison of the three
    > 2. Build quality
    > 3. Suitability for 300D sensor, that is, how bad does a lens have to be
    > before the 300D sensor can start telling the difference?
    >
    > I am open to used lenses and my upper spending limit is US$200.
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Siddhartha
    >
     
    YoYo, Jan 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Siddhartha Jain wrote:


    > What I liked about the Canon 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 is that it has USM so
    > AF should be faster, manual focus over-ride in AF mode and rear
    > focussing element.


    I've got the EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6

    It's not a bad little lens. It isn't as sharp as my EF 100-400 L, but
    the color and contrast is about the same. What I really don't like about
    it is that it's *very* prone to purple fringing.

    I carry it in my camera bag and use it when I don't want to lug the
    100-400 around.. I've also got a 58mm Canon 250D close up lens that
    fits the 100-300 and makes a pretty good macro combo.

    I have no experience with the other lenses you mentioned.
     
    Jim Townsend, Jan 15, 2005
    #3
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Eric Gill Guest

    "YoYo" <_> wrote in news::

    re: lenses

    > Stick with Canon after all you spent for a Canon digital.


    That's extremely bad advice. Lenses are good or bad depending on their
    design, features, and build, not the logo stamped on them.

    Tamron is really inconsistent - I had a wide zoom from them that was so bad
    I took it out, placed it in a bag, and worked it over with a sledgehammer.
    OTOH, I broke down and bought an SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)
    Macro last week, and optically it keeps up with my "L" glass beautifully.

    Yes, it's not made as well as the 24-70L. It doesn't focus as fast. It's
    not weather sealed. It was also just $350 instead of over a thousand bucks,
    a compromise I was very happy to make. Would everyone? No - but you select
    what you pay based on the features set, not the name.

    As for Siddhartha's question, I own a 75-300IS and cannot reccomend it
    except as a budget lens you'll replace sometime soon. The glass is
    mediocre, the USM is adequate at best. The construction is cheap, it's a
    very elongating push-pull design and the IS helps but is no substitute for
    fast glass. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the other lenses you
    are looking at, but it certainly does seem that the 28-300 is not well
    regarded.
     
    Eric Gill, Jan 15, 2005
    #4
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    YoYo Guest

    Sorry you don't agree Eric but you are wrong still in my opinion.
    Here is a site that compares the 75-300 to some L lenses and it really does
    well considering.
    http://www.wildpicture.com/pages/photography/lenstest/index.htm
    see for yourself.

    "Eric Gill" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns95DF9A9994023ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.254...
    > "YoYo" <_> wrote in news::
    >
    > re: lenses
    >
    > > Stick with Canon after all you spent for a Canon digital.

    >
    > That's extremely bad advice. Lenses are good or bad depending on their
    > design, features, and build, not the logo stamped on them.
    >
    > Tamron is really inconsistent - I had a wide zoom from them that was so

    bad
    > I took it out, placed it in a bag, and worked it over with a sledgehammer.
    > OTOH, I broke down and bought an SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)
    > Macro last week, and optically it keeps up with my "L" glass beautifully.
    >
    > Yes, it's not made as well as the 24-70L. It doesn't focus as fast. It's
    > not weather sealed. It was also just $350 instead of over a thousand

    bucks,
    > a compromise I was very happy to make. Would everyone? No - but you select
    > what you pay based on the features set, not the name.
    >
    > As for Siddhartha's question, I own a 75-300IS and cannot reccomend it
    > except as a budget lens you'll replace sometime soon. The glass is
    > mediocre, the USM is adequate at best. The construction is cheap, it's a
    > very elongating push-pull design and the IS helps but is no substitute for
    > fast glass. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the other lenses you
    > are looking at, but it certainly does seem that the 28-300 is not well
    > regarded.
    >
     
    YoYo, Jan 15, 2005
    #5
  6. Siddhartha Jain

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "YoYo" <_> wrote:

    >Sorry you don't agree Eric but you are wrong still in my opinion.
    >Here is a site that compares the 75-300 to some L lenses and it really does
    >well considering.
    >http://www.wildpicture.com/pages/photography/lenstest/index.htm
    >see for yourself.


    The images are severly downsized, and I can still see the softness of
    the 75-300 (not to mention less contrast).
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jan 15, 2005
    #6
  7. Siddhartha Jain

    YoYo Guest

    JPS instead of you always arguing, why dont you offer something better for
    the original poster? We will keep you in our prayers... piti

    <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > In message <>,
    > "YoYo" <_> wrote:
    >
    > >Sorry you don't agree Eric but you are wrong still in my opinion.
    > >Here is a site that compares the 75-300 to some L lenses and it really

    does
    > >well considering.
    > >http://www.wildpicture.com/pages/photography/lenstest/index.htm
    > >see for yourself.

    >
    > The images are severly downsized, and I can still see the softness of
    > the 75-300 (not to mention less contrast).
    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    YoYo, Jan 16, 2005
    #7
  8. Siddhartha Jain

    Eric Gill Guest

    "YoYo" <_> wrote in news::

    > Sorry you don't agree Eric but you are wrong still in my opinion.


    <shrug> Since you're recommending buying on reputation rather than an
    objective comparison, you needn't qualify that.

    Do you OWN a copy of the 75-300IS? I do. They are mediocre at best.
    Compared to quality glass like, say, the Sigma 70-200, the results you
    get will simply make you want to pitch the lens.

    > Here is a site that compares the 75-300 to some L lenses and it really
    > does well considering.
    > http://www.wildpicture.com/pages/photography/lenstest/index.htm
    > see for yourself.


    Amazing what you can do in post-processing. Downsampling in particular
    will cover a variety of sins.

    Sorry - I dunno what he's up to, but it's not make an objective review.

    > "Eric Gill" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns95DF9A9994023ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.254...
    >> "YoYo" <_> wrote in news::
    >>
    >> re: lenses
    >>
    >> > Stick with Canon after all you spent for a Canon digital.

    >>
    >> That's extremely bad advice. Lenses are good or bad depending on
    >> their design, features, and build, not the logo stamped on them.
    >>
    >> Tamron is really inconsistent - I had a wide zoom from them that was
    >> so

    > bad
    >> I took it out, placed it in a bag, and worked it over with a
    >> sledgehammer. OTOH, I broke down and bought an SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di
    >> LD Aspherical (IF) Macro last week, and optically it keeps up with my
    >> "L" glass beautifully.
    >>
    >> Yes, it's not made as well as the 24-70L. It doesn't focus as fast.
    >> It's not weather sealed. It was also just $350 instead of over a
    >> thousand

    > bucks,
    >> a compromise I was very happy to make. Would everyone? No - but you
    >> select what you pay based on the features set, not the name.
    >>
    >> As for Siddhartha's question, I own a 75-300IS and cannot reccomend
    >> it except as a budget lens you'll replace sometime soon. The glass is
    >> mediocre, the USM is adequate at best. The construction is cheap,
    >> it's a very elongating push-pull design and the IS helps but is no
    >> substitute for fast glass. Unfortunately, I have no experience with
    >> the other lenses you are looking at, but it certainly does seem that
    >> the 28-300 is not well regarded.
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Eric Gill, Jan 16, 2005
    #8
  9. Eric Gill wrote:
    > That's extremely bad advice. Lenses are good or bad depending on

    their
    > design, features, and build, not the logo stamped on them.


    Yep, I have my eye on the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4. At $450, it looks
    very tempting.

    >
    > Yes, it's not made as well as the 24-70L. It doesn't focus as fast.

    It's
    > not weather sealed. It was also just $350 instead of over a thousand

    bucks,
    > a compromise I was very happy to make. Would everyone? No - but you

    select
    > what you pay based on the features set, not the name.


    Ahhh!! you can't compare with a $1000++ "L" lens. Simply not fair :)


    >
    > As for Siddhartha's question, I own a 75-300IS and cannot reccomend

    it
    > except as a budget lens you'll replace sometime soon. The glass is
    > mediocre, the USM is adequate at best. The construction is cheap,

    it's a
    > very elongating push-pull design and the IS helps but is no

    substitute for
    > fast glass. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the other lenses

    you
    > are looking at, but it certainly does seem that the 28-300 is not

    well
    > regarded.


    I think I'll get the Canon 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6. When I have more money
    (maybe in a couple of years), I'll probably get the 100-400mm "L". But
    the build quality of the 100-300mm looks like its well worth keeping
    even then. The features it has over the 75-300mm USM are:
    - Ring-USM (aka true USM) hence faster AF and MF over-ride
    - Rear-focussing elememt
    - Metal mount (polycarbonate body)
    - distance window

    Optically, no one seems to put it WAY above the 75-300mm but maybe just
    a notch above.

    Thanks for the replies.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 16, 2005
    #9
  10. Siddhartha Jain

    Eric Gill Guest

    "Siddhartha Jain" <> wrote in
    news::

    > Eric Gill wrote:
    >> That's extremely bad advice. Lenses are good or bad depending on

    > their
    >> design, features, and build, not the logo stamped on them.

    >
    > Yep, I have my eye on the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4. At $450, it looks
    > very tempting.


    Allegedly great for the money. I splurged for the Canon L version (ouch!),
    so am very spoiled here. Having a constant f-stop is a wonderful thing.

    <snip>

    > Ahhh!! you can't compare with a $1000++ "L" lens. Simply not fair :)


    Ten to one I break down and buy the "L" - in about a year or so, when I'll
    hopefully be shooting even more than now. In the meantime, I got some great
    glass, my wife got a shopping spree, and there was money left over, thus
    helping to ensure I'll still be married a year from now.

    RE: Canon 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6.

    > Optically, no one seems to put it WAY above the 75-300mm but maybe just
    > a notch above.


    Well, it seems you have to bring a great pile of cash to the table for a
    better zoom in the 300+ range. On paper (never used it) all the features
    you list plus the low price makes it sound like the best choice available.

    > Thanks for the replies.


    You bet.
     
    Eric Gill, Jan 16, 2005
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. DEP
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    1,247
    Tony Spadaro
    Nov 27, 2003
  2. kjk

    Tamron SLR zoom lens adapter for Canon A70/A80

    kjk, Dec 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,080
    Mark B.
    Dec 28, 2003
  3. W Chan

    zoom lens Nikkor vs. Sigma vs. Tamron??

    W Chan, Jun 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    21,148
    Fred T. Mahusay
    Jun 23, 2004
  4. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Tamron 75-300 Vs Tamron 70-300

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Sep 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    581
    Bill Tuthill
    Sep 6, 2005
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,418
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page