In general there is a 10% fudge factor on lenses. (ie anything between
270 and 330 would be a 300, but believe me now one ever called a 325mm lens
300. It could be that for these "super" zooms, a lot of the range has more
to do with advertising than fact. I would say that if you need a 1.4 TC to
get 300mms out of it, it's a good lens to send back.
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
"advid" wrote in message
... I've got a Canon D30 and a Canon 300D that my wife and I enjoy
using for mainly birds/wildlife....
We've been using a Canon 75-300 usm (sometimes with a 1.4 extender)
for close ups of birds etc...
I've just got a Tamron 28-300 XR and at full 300mm it gets nowhere
near as close as the Canon at 300mm.... Even with the 1.4 on it's only
just about the same as the Canon wothout the 1.4 on - why should there
be such a difference ????
Surely 300mm is 300mm no matter what make of lens..... ?