Zoom lens for Canon 300D - Tamron/Canon

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

 

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:

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.

 

"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
regarded.

 

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.

 

In message <>,

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

 

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

 

<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.

 

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

 

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.