Lens question - advice needed! Tamron vs Canon

[mat1227]

Hi all - I'd like to ask the collective a bit of advice if I may .

I'm fairly new to DSLRs, have a 350d with 18-55 kit lens, just brought a first cheap tripod and I'm far from a connoisseur. I had a play with a mate's Tamron very similar to the one below and found it a complete revelation, payday has come so I'm considering one of the below as a beginnner's second lens.

My question is, is there much between the two below? Any strong recommendations against either? Other thoughts?

http://www.microglobe.co.uk/catalog/product_info.p...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-CANON-EF-75-300mm-NON-US...

I was most impressed with the lovely depth of field at greater zooms compared with the kit lens, I'm most likely to be experimenting with lanscapes, touristy stuff and some auto tracking shots/sports so need a bit of an allrounder.

The question really boils down to 'is either of the above rubbish/particularly good'? I wanted to ask before I committed blindly. Erring on the side of the Tamron as it was a Tamron 70-300 I tried and was originally smitten by

[_dobbo_]

70-300 on your Canon equates to 112-480mm. This isn't an all-rounder, and definitely isn't a landscape lens.

For motorsport stuff the focal length should be good - but I'd personally avoid both those as from what I can see neither has an onboard focus motor (USM in Canon nomenclature).

[Piers_K]

I had a Canon 75-300 III (with USM). For the money and as a first 'second' lens I was happy enough with the results until I tried shooting motorsport. I found it missed enough shots through slow focusing to become annoying..

[mat1227]

Ok thanks chaps

Mat

[MonkeyHanger]

The Canon is utter cack. I had one as my first lens and it's notorious for being soft at 200mm+ which rather defeats the point of a 70-300 lens.

Sigma do a well regarded 70-300. Or try and find a used Canon 100-300 USM.

Edited by MonkeyHanger on Thursday 27th March 16:07

[sidaorb]

Matt how much are you looking to part with?

[flat-planedCrank]

Canon do a 70-300 IS USM (£369) as well, its a bit more cash but has pretty good image quality.

Downsides ? Rotating front element, the AF isn't as fast as the 70-200 L range (micro usm rather than ring usm), no full time manual focus.

Review on photozone.de




Cheers.

[RobDickinson]

I have an old 75-300 canon.

Its at times capable of producing a decent image, but ratio of garbage to keepers is super high, autofocus is more like teabreak time and if I'm shooting anything moving I use manual focus, hunting end to end feels like 4-5 seconds.

I'd argue about the 'landscape lens' bit, any lens can do landscapes and longer lenses have thier uses there, but no its not a get massive vistas in one shot lens.

The 70-300IS is about the best zoom of that range for a reasonable price I think. But I've talked myself into the 100-400L...

[cannedheat]

I think this Sigma is well regarded http://www.camerapricebuster.com/Sigma_70-300mm_f4...

Make sure you get the 'APO' version though, it has better glass...

[DIW35]

Don't know what you are looking to spend, but the 70-200mm L Canon would get my vote.

[Piers_K]

I wouldnt go so far as to say utter cack..
Its certainly not 'L' class.. but then its not 'L' class money either..

handheld.. 1/320 at 300mm

[mat1227]

Nice shot that one

Thanks everyone for the pointers - I'm not at the stage yet where I feel I'd appreciate the subtleties of a £200+ lens - still blown away by the transition from regular digi cams to DSLR and having fun playing with shots so budget is sub £100 (determined to avoid the slippery slope in terms of kit prices for as long as possible).

I just loved having a play with my mate's Tamron and wanted a similar thing for my camera.

Cheers

[havoc]

Maybe look at 2nd-hand lenses. And consider if you need IS.

I owned the Canon 75-300 for a while, and switched-up to a 70-300IS. Which is a quicker and slightly crisper lens, and where the IS gives you another couple of stops of exposure if nothing else. But the 75-300 was adequate for me when I was a beginner...

[kybo]

Judging by what you enjoy photographing, it'd be dang near impossible to get 1 lens to do all that you want for the money you want to pay. I'm no pro either and I'll probably have more than a few people disagreeing with me but I married my 350D with a Sigma 28-300 and I think they performed admirably together. I liked the build and quality of the Sigma. It was wide enough and lengthy enough for me, initially. They're not much more than £100 on eBay (£150-175 new).

I am considering the 70-300mm IS (favourable reviews) to go with my 28-135mm IS, but I still have, and occasionally use, the Sigma.

These were taken with the Sigma. The images aren't the best but that's probably coz of me, not the lens (my first ever motorsport pics and attempts at panning etc).

Silverstone F1 test, 2007.