canon 70-300 v. tamron 28-300

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by pshaw, Nov 6, 2004.

  1. pshaw

    pshaw Guest

    i have been reading the reviews of the new canon 70-300 do is and it
    seems that at least with 35 mm film there is a fair amount of flair
    and softness; other than the obvious advantages of the is would such a
    lens offer any clear cut advantage(s) over the new (but not newest)
    tamron 28-300 that i already have?

    i haven't found a head to head comparison of the two ... tia ...

    steve
     
    pshaw, Nov 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. pshaw

    leo Guest

    The Canon 75-300 is not an outstanding lens. If you're satisfied with the
    Tamron, use it and you should save up your money to get the Canon 70-200/4
    or 300/4 IS.
     
    leo, Nov 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. pshaw

    JPS Guest

    In message <Kl_id.19171$>,
    That's not the lens in question (actually, there are three different
    Canon 75-300s). The lens in question is the 70-300 DO IS.
    --
     
    JPS, Nov 6, 2004
    #3
  4. pshaw

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    I have the 70-300 DO IS and it is excellent. No Tamron 28-300 (there
    seem to be at least two, one the Di)could compare -- except for being
    smaller, lighter, far less expensive and having more range. I have
    several lenses going to 300mm (a Canon 100-300 and Sigma 70-300APO II)
    and the DO IS is far superior. Better optics and at 300mm IS can sure
    make a difference when hand held.

    But -- what WAS the question? :)

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 6, 2004
    #4
  5. pshaw

    pshaw Guest

    in several net sites there have been comments about the 70-300 do is
    as having unacceptable flare and also being 'soft' ...with the major
    good points being its small size and i.s. capabilites;

    the tamron 28-300 (there are 3 actually, two being small, the latest
    being "digital" whatever that means) is small and lightweight ...of
    course it doesn't have i.s. but otherwise how would it compare to the
    70-300 do is?

    (that was the question)

    steve
     
    pshaw, Nov 7, 2004
    #5
  6. pshaw

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Overstated re the flare and Softness. Mine has been outstanding, and
    others have reported the same. No other X-300 lens can come close.
    Only large, heavy Canon L glass will do better.

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 7, 2004
    #6
  7. pshaw

    bmyself Guest

    I just read a Magazine Review(Amateur Photographer) this weeks, on the Canon
    Lens, and the Review gave the Lens 9/10 for Quality. Its expensive though.
    www.mikezite.co.uk

    Try Fred Mirandas Reviews to see if there is anything on there Regarding
    Reviewing both Lenses.
    A link http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
    Hope this Helps you.
    Regards,
    Mike.
     
    bmyself, Nov 7, 2004
    #7
  8. pshaw

    pshaw Guest

    it was actually on the fred miranda site that essentially all of the
    comments were negative about the 70-300 do is lens in regards to glare
    and 'softness'

    so i'm still dithering ...has anyone actually -themselves or on the
    net - compared the two? are there hard data on "softtness" and glare
    on each lens?

    tia steve
     
    pshaw, Nov 8, 2004
    #8
  9. pshaw

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Phil Wheeler, Nov 8, 2004
    #9
  10. pshaw

    andrew29 Guest

    http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_300/
     
    andrew29, Nov 9, 2004
    #10
  11. the tamron 28-300 (there are 3 actually, two being small, the latest
    I've yet to see an acceptable 28-300 lens, but even assuming the new
    Tamron is better than the ones I saw a few years ago, remember that
    the IS will give you back 2 f-stops, or, often much more important at
    300mm, a faster exposure. If you plan to shoot hand-held, an IS 300mm
    lens will beat any non-IS lens in some situations. If you're forced
    to shoot at 1/60 second, you can forget about a non-IS lens at 300mm,
    but the IS lens will give you a crisp shot. But if you're shooting
    fast-moving subjects, then the IS won't help at all.

    If you shoot things that don't move a lot, go for the IS.

    -Joel
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Dec 10, 2004
    #11
  12. pshaw

    Steve Dell Guest

    I tried the Tamron 28-300. Nice concept but a poor implementation, IMHO.

    What I found is that at any length beyond 200 mm images were soft. Between
    28-100 was tack sharp and between 100 and 200 was quite good.

    I eventually sold it on eBay.

    Steve
    Tucson AZ
     
    Steve Dell, Dec 24, 2004
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.