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.