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.

    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 15, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  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
    YoYo, Jan 15, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Siddhartha Jain wrote:

    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
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Eric Gill Guest

    "YoYo" <_> wrote in
    re: lenses
    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
    Eric Gill, Jan 15, 2005
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    YoYo Guest

    YoYo, Jan 15, 2005
  6. Siddhartha Jain

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    The images are severly downsized, and I can still see the softness of
    the 75-300 (not to mention less contrast).
    JPS, Jan 15, 2005
  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
    YoYo, Jan 16, 2005
  8. Siddhartha Jain

    Eric Gill Guest

    <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.
    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, Jan 16, 2005
  9. Yep, I have my eye on the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4. At $450, it looks
    very tempting.
    Ahhh!! you can't compare with a $1000++ "L" lens. Simply not fair :)

    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
  10. Siddhartha Jain

    Eric Gill Guest

    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.

    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.
    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.
    You bet.
    Eric Gill, Jan 16, 2005
    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.