Canon EF 75-300mm USM III f/4-5.6 Lens v/s. Tamron AF 70-3..

"Bill" <carver-rem-33.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:esgpq3l773p74qqtucclf8m0502ds3kc1q@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:42:01 -0800 (PST), oyeguru.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Neither:
>
> Canon 70-300 mm EF f/4-5.6 IS USM
>
> Bill,
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
 >> Stay informed about: Canon EF 75-300mm USM III f/4-5.6 Lens v/s. Tamron AF 70-3.. 

"Celcius" <celcius38.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:foiiq0$ule$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Bill" <carver-rem-33.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:esgpq3l773p74qqtucclf8m0502ds3kc1q@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:42:01 -0800 (PST), oyeguru.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Neither:
>>
>> Canon 70-300 mm EF f/4-5.6 IS USM
>>
>> Bill,
> 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

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
 >> Stay informed about: Canon EF 75-300mm USM III f/4-5.6 Lens v/s. Tamron AF 70-3.. 

tfrog93.TakeThisOut@gEEmail.com (dwight) wrote:

> 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.

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon EF 75-300mm USM III f/4-5.6 Lens v/s. Tamron AF 70-3.. 

"Andrew MacPherson" <andrew.mcp.RemoveThis@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:memo.20080209093002.3600C@address_disguised.address_disguised...
> tfrog93.RemoveThis@gEEmail.com (dwight) wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Is the 100-400L really that impressive for action work? I suppose it must
> be popular (airshows are littered with them!) for a reason.

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.

> 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.

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
 >> Stay informed about: Canon EF 75-300mm USM III f/4-5.6 Lens v/s. Tamron AF 70-3.. 

tfrog93 DeleteThis @gEEmail.com (dwight) wrote:

> 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

Thanks for your thoughts Dwight.

Andrew McP
 >> Stay informed about: Canon EF 75-300mm USM III f/4-5.6 Lens v/s. Tamron AF 70-3.. 

"dwight" <tfrog93 DeleteThis @gEEmail.com> wrote in message
news:GLadnYYRc_SgvjDanZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Celcius" <celcius38 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:foiiq0$ule$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "Bill" <carver-rem-33 DeleteThis @bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:esgpq3l773p74qqtucclf8m0502ds3kc1q@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:42:01 -0800 (PST), oyeguru DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> Neither:
>>>
>>> Canon 70-300 mm EF f/4-5.6 IS USM
>>>
>>> Bill,
>> 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
>
> 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
Ok, Dwight, but how much does it cost new?
 >> Stay informed about: Canon EF 75-300mm USM III f/4-5.6 Lens v/s. Tamron AF 70-3.. 

"Celcius" <celcius38.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:foo10u$pf6$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "dwight" <tfrog93.DeleteThis@gEEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GLadnYYRc_SgvjDanZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "Celcius" <celcius38.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:foiiq0$ule$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> "Bill" <carver-rem-33.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:esgpq3l773p74qqtucclf8m0502ds3kc1q@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:42:01 -0800 (PST), oyeguru.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>> Neither:
>>>>
>>>> Canon 70-300 mm EF f/4-5.6 IS USM
>>>>
>>>> Bill,
>>> 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
>>
>> 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
> Ok, Dwight, but how much does it cost new?

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

)
 >> Stay informed about: Canon EF 75-300mm USM III f/4-5.6 Lens v/s. Tamron AF 70-3..