Zoom lens for Canon 300D - Tamron/Canon

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:


> 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'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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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/p [...] /index.htm
see for yourself.

"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DF9A9994023ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.254...
> "YoYo" <_> wrote in news:10uib7l3nbhmv8c@corp.supernews.com:
>
> re: 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.
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
newsg8ju0dl6jrniiujcma8973rr2qvfj1411@4ax.com...
> In message <10uj4hcfkd08d1f@corp.supernews.com>,
> "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/photography/lenstest/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 <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eric Gill wrote:
> That's extremely bad advice. Lenses are good or bad depending on
their
> design, features, and build, not the logo stamped on them.

Yep, I have my eye on the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4. At $450, it looks
very tempting.

>
> 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.

Ahhh!! you can't compare with a $1000++ "L" lens. Simply not fair


>
> 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.

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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1105784815.289328.249870@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote in news:gm8ju0hh5tq9atj2airdv2qn69unfchedp@4ax.com:

> In message <10uir8ri22oc1bd@news.supernews.com>,
> Jim Townsend <not@real.address> 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"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote in news:5srju01k6la2skdg747qb6l1eg4v77jkeq@4ax.com:

> In message <S7iGd.817321$2W1.63487@news.easynews.com>,
> MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>
>>JPS@no.komm wrote in news:gm8ju0hh5tq9atj2airdv2qn69unfchedp@4ax.com:
>
>>> In message <10uir8ri22oc1bd@news.supernews.com>,
>>> Jim Townsend <not@real.address> 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)
>
> It's not an aberration. It is electrons from saturated green-filtered
> sensors spilling into the surrounding blue- and red-filtered sensors.
> It is only purple because the demosaicing algorithm thinks it's real
> red and blue light.

This is fascinating, I have never heard of this before. Could you provide
some links to info on this problem and why it happens? I really would like
to read up more on this.



--
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"