Canon EF 75-300mm USM III f/4-5.6 Lens v/s. Tamron AF 70-300mm Dif/4-5.6

Discussion in 'Canon' started by oyeguru, Feb 8, 2008.

  1. oyeguru

    oyeguru Guest

    Hi,

    I am going for the Canon EOS 350D but still undecided on buying the
    lens. I have an interest in
    aviation photography and planning to pursue it as a hobby. Out of the
    below two, which lens
    should I go for:

    - Canon EF 75-300mm USM III f/4-5.6 Lens
    - Tamron AF 70-300mm Di f/4-5.6

    Thanx.
     
    oyeguru, Feb 8, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. oyeguru

    Bill Guest

    Neither:

    Canon 70-300 mm EF f/4-5.6 IS USM

    Bill
     
    Bill, Feb 8, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. oyeguru

    Celcius Guest

    I'll second that.
    I have that one as well as the 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM
    Both are great lenses.
    Marcel
     
    Celcius, Feb 8, 2008
    #3
  4. oyeguru

    dwight Guest

    I'd say good, not great. And I've never been really satisfied with its
    results.

    I rented the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L for a month
    (http://www.tfrog93.com/digitals/lenses/100_400L/100_400L.htm) and was very
    sorry to return it and go back to my 70-300. If I had it to do over again,
    I'd have waited until I had the extra money to buy this lens, instead of the
    70-300. (Yeah, sure, like I could have waited.)

    But the one the OP is talking about... is that the one that retails for
    $189? If you read the reviews at B&H, it seems that the people who bought it
    like it. Perhaps because they have nothing else to compare it to?

    dwight
     
    dwight, Feb 9, 2008
    #4
  5. Is the 100-400L really that impressive for action work? I suppose it must
    be popular (airshows are littered with them!) for a reason.

    I'm currently planning to jump ship from Pentax purely because I want the
    best possible (within a good, but not infinite budget!) autofocus
    performance at airshows. My K100D struggled last season... though it's a
    fine camera for everything else.

    Anyway, I currently have a variety of options...

    1) 40D + 100-400L (expensive and longer at the wide end than I'd like)
    2) 40D + Bigma (the range I want, but no IS and of debatable quality)
    3) D300 + 70-300 VRII (well respected lens at a good price, making up for
    the D300 premium, and more pixels on the D300 gives me additional 'crop
    zoom' to make up for the missing 100mm at the long end. Later I'd like an
    80-400 *if* Nikon update it to focus faster).

    At the moment the Nikon is luring it towards me with that wonderful
    screen (ideal on a long day in the field to see if your technique is
    working), state of the art focusing, and -- last but not least -- the
    very well respected 18-200VR zoom, which seems like a great lens for the
    95% of the year when I'm not waving my camera at the sky.

    It's tough making a decision though. The 100-400L keeps enticing me back
    to the 40D solution, but part of me would prefer the relative anonymity
    of a black Nikon lens to being just another bloke waving a white lens in
    the air. There's also no obvious Canon equivalent to the 18-200VR (for
    good reason, admittedly; it's an ambitious range if you want quality).

    Sorry, I'm thinking out loud in someone else's thread. My apologies for
    going off on a tangent!

    Andrew McP

    PS Interesting 100-400 page, thanks.
     
    Andrew MacPherson, Feb 9, 2008
    #5
  6. oyeguru

    dwight Guest

    Hey, I'm just a hack wannabe, but that was the sharpest glass I've played
    with yet. Assuming it's a bright sunny day, that f/4.5-5.6 should be more
    than capable.
    Thank YOU.

    We have a small airfield about half a mile away from the house, and our back
    yard seems to be on the approach. If I remember my student pilot days
    correctly, this parade of Cessnas and Pipers comes over us at between 800
    and 1,100 feet. Every once in a while, we get a very slow Cub or a dazzling
    red biplane or some other exotic, and the airfield hosts an annual
    helicopter show, too. I've taken hundreds of shots with the 70-300 (a few
    samples are at: http://www.tfrog93.com/digitals/images/transp/transp.htm)
    and ...eh. Like I say, if I had it to do over again, I would have waited
    until I could have plunked the $1300 down on that 100-400, instead of
    jumping on the 70-300.

    I currently have:
    the kit lens (of course)
    the 50mm f/1.8 bang for the buck
    the 70-300 journeyman telephoto zoom
    and now the 100mm macro.

    I'll be playing with a 400mm prime for the next couple of weeks, and then I
    want to look at the 17-40mm f/4L...

    See, I think that might be the way to go. The 400mm for birds in flight, the
    17-40 for walking about the airshow.

    dwight
     
    dwight, Feb 9, 2008
    #6
  7. Thanks for your thoughts Dwight.

    Andrew McP
     
    Andrew MacPherson, Feb 9, 2008
    #7
  8. oyeguru

    Celcius Guest

    Ok, Dwight, but how much does it cost new?
     
    Celcius, Feb 10, 2008
    #8
  9. oyeguru

    dwight Guest

    The 100-400? That's the cheap one, only $1,300.

    :()
     
    dwight, Feb 11, 2008
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.