canon 70-300 v. tamron 28-300

i have been reading the reviews of the new canon 70-300 do is and it
seems that at least with 35 mm film there is a fair amount of flair
and softness; other than the obvious advantages of the is would such a
lens offer any clear cut advantage(s) over the new (but not newest)
tamron 28-300 that i already have?

i haven't found a head to head comparison of the two ... tia ...

steve

wrote in message
...
i have been reading the reviews of the new canon 70-300 do is and it
seems that at least with 35 mm film there is a fair amount of flair
and softness; other than the obvious advantages of the is would such a
lens offer any clear cut advantage(s) over the new (but not newest)
tamron 28-300 that i already have?

i haven't found a head to head comparison of the two ... tia ...

steve

The Canon 75-300 is not an outstanding lens. If you're satisfied with the
Tamron, use it and you should save up your money to get the Canon 70-200/4
or 300/4 IS.

wrote in message
...
i have been reading the reviews of the new canon 70-300 do is and it
seems that at least with 35 mm film there is a fair amount of flair
and softness; other than the obvious advantages of the is would such a
lens offer any clear cut advantage(s) over the new (but not newest)
tamron 28-300 that i already have?

i haven't found a head to head comparison of the two ... tia ...

steve

The Canon 75-300 is not an outstanding lens. If you're satisfied with the
Tamron, use it and you should save up your money to get the Canon 70-200/4
or 300/4 IS.

In message k.net,
"leo" wrote:

The Canon 75-300 is not an outstanding lens.

That's not the lens in question (actually, there are three different
Canon 75-300s). The lens in question is the 70-300 DO IS.
--


John P Sheehy

In message k.net,
"leo" wrote:

The Canon 75-300 is not an outstanding lens.

That's not the lens in question (actually, there are three different
Canon 75-300s). The lens in question is the 70-300 DO IS.
--


John P Sheehy

wrote:
In message k.net,
"leo" wrote:


The Canon 75-300 is not an outstanding lens.


That's not the lens in question (actually, there are three different
Canon 75-300s). The lens in question is the 70-300 DO IS.

I have the 70-300 DO IS and it is excellent. No Tamron 28-300 (there
seem to be at least two, one the Di)could compare -- except for being
smaller, lighter, far less expensive and having more range. I have
several lenses going to 300mm (a Canon 100-300 and Sigma 70-300APO II)
and the DO IS is far superior. Better optics and at 300mm IS can sure
make a difference when hand held.

But -- what WAS the question? :-)

Phil

in several net sites there have been comments about the 70-300 do is
as having unacceptable flare and also being 'soft' ...with the major
good points being its small size and i.s. capabilites;

the tamron 28-300 (there are 3 actually, two being small, the latest
being "digital" whatever that means) is small and lightweight ...of
course it doesn't have i.s. but otherwise how would it compare to the
70-300 do is?

(that was the question)

steve

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 15:37:15 GMT, Phil Wheeler
wrote:



wrote:
In message k.net,
"leo" wrote:


The Canon 75-300 is not an outstanding lens.


That's not the lens in question (actually, there are three different
Canon 75-300s). The lens in question is the 70-300 DO IS.

I have the 70-300 DO IS and it is excellent. No Tamron 28-300 (there
seem to be at least two, one the Di)could compare -- except for being
smaller, lighter, far less expensive and having more range. I have
several lenses going to 300mm (a Canon 100-300 and Sigma 70-300APO II)
and the DO IS is far superior. Better optics and at 300mm IS can sure
make a difference when hand held.

But -- what WAS the question? :-)

Phil

wrote:
in several net sites there have been comments about the 70-300 do is
as having unacceptable flare and also being 'soft' ...with the major
good points being its small size and i.s. capabilites;


Overstated re the flare and Softness. Mine has been outstanding, and
others have reported the same. No other X-300 lens can come close.
Only large, heavy Canon L glass will do better.

Phil

wrote:
in several net sites there have been comments about the 70-300 do is
as having unacceptable flare and also being 'soft' ...with the major
good points being its small size and i.s. capabilites;


Overstated re the flare and Softness. Mine has been outstanding, and
others have reported the same. No other X-300 lens can come close.
Only large, heavy Canon L glass will do better.

Phil

wrote:
in several net sites there have been comments about the 70-300 do is
as having unacceptable flare and also being 'soft' ...with the major
good points being its small size and i.s. capabilites;


Overstated re the flare and Softness. Mine has been outstanding, and
others have reported the same. No other X-300 lens can come close.
Only large, heavy Canon L glass will do better.

Phil