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 in message
oups.com...
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

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:43:34 -0500, "YoYo" _ wrote:

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 in message
roups.com...
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


I use a Sigma 28-300 F 3.5 -6.3 macro hyperzoom on my 300Dand i leave
it mounted as my main lens. In my opinion the results with this lens
are astounding for its modest price. May be worth a look.

"YoYo" _ wrote in :

lenses

Stick with Canon after all you spent for a Canon digital.

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/pho...test/index.htm
see for yourself.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message
4...
"YoYo" _ wrote in :

lenses

Stick with Canon after all you spent for a Canon digital.

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.

In message ,
"YoYo" _ wrote:

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/pho...test/index.htm
see for yourself.

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


John P Sheehy

In message ,
Jim Townsend wrote:

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.

Purple fringing is a sensor problem. Do you mean chromatic aberration?
--


John P Sheehy

wrote in :

In message ,
Jim Townsend wrote:

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.

Purple fringing is a sensor problem. Do you mean chromatic
aberration?

What's the difference? Is the definition of chromatic aberration different
in your dictionary? (Purple fringing is an aberration of the chroma as far
as I know)



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

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

wrote in message
...
In message ,
"YoYo" _ wrote:

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/pho...test/index.htm
see for yourself.

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


John P Sheehy

"YoYo" _ wrote in :

Sorry you don't agree Eric but you are wrong still in my opinion.

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.

Here is a site that compares the 75-300 to some L lenses and it really
does well considering.
http://www.wildpicture.com/pages/pho...test/index.htm
see for yourself.

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" wrote in message
4...
"YoYo" _ wrote in :

lenses

Stick with Canon after all you spent for a Canon digital.

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.