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 ...

    pshaw, Nov 6, 2004
    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
    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
  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 Wheeler, Nov 6, 2004
  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)

    pshaw, Nov 7, 2004
  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 Wheeler, Nov 7, 2004
  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.

    Try Fred Mirandas Reviews to see if there is anything on there Regarding
    Reviewing both Lenses.
    A link
    Hope this Helps you.
    bmyself, Nov 7, 2004
  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
  9. pshaw

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Phil Wheeler, Nov 8, 2004
  10. pshaw

    andrew29 Guest
    andrew29, Nov 9, 2004
  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.

    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Dec 10, 2004
  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.

    Tucson AZ
    Steve Dell, Dec 24, 2004
    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.