canon 70-300 v. tamron 28-300

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

 

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.

 

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.
--

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

Checkout posts at the dpreview Canon SLR Lens forum. Quite a bit of DO
IS info and samples there.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1029

Phil

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_300/

 

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

 

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