Printable View
Happy New Year All!!
I just bought myself the Canon EF 300/4L IS and the EF 100/2.8 Macro L ISlens along with the 1.4x II extender. Now I was just reading some great reveiws on the Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical Macro and am having major second thoughts!
Should I have gotten the Tamron insteadand saved $$$ andhave a great all-in-one lens or should I keep what I have and put the Tamron on my goal list?
I'm new to this and wondering if I've made my first mistake [:(]
Denise
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddt0725
Absolutely not! Image quality is not even comparable! I have a Minolta 300mm f/4.5 and love it, although it's not quite as good as the Canon it's still such a fun and usefull lens.
Here a link to Bryan's ISO 112233 crops, the difference ishuge.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp= 0&Lens=492&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI =7&API=1&LensComp=111
John.
I agree with 'Fast Glass'.
It's like comparing apples and walnuts. Those Canon's are considered gold and possibly the most sought after lenses.
Canon lenses are always superior. period. duh. finito. no questions asked. you made the right choice. yay!
No mistake. You have bought a couple of top quality lenses. You are not going to get better image quality from the Tamron. Your Canon lenses are also faster and better built, all-in-all I wouldn't think twice about your decision to go with Canon.
Thanks! I feel more confident now knowing I made the right choice!
Thanks! The tamron ad sure sounds like it's the best of the best ...I should never have second guessed my choice to stick with Canon!
Thanks! Feel much better knowing all of you feel I made the right choice!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddt0725
Denise,
No worries! I wish I had your lens selection! The versatility you just acquired, from sports, to wildlife, to macro, to portraits, etc., in just two lenses is exceptional. Congratulations on the excellent choices!
Are you kidding? The comparison isn't even close. Rest assured, you did not make a mistake.
The Tamron is f/3.5-6.3, which means it won't AF on any EOS body @ 270mm, whereas the 300/4L IS will, as it is over 1 full stop faster. With the EF 1.4x II Extender, the 300/4L IS becomes a 420/5.6, and you *still* have AF.
Furthermore, the 100/2.8L macro IS again has a wider maximum aperture than the Tamron. At the same focal length (100mm), the Tamron is f/5.6, which is two stops slower.
Although the Tamron says "macro," it is not a true 1:1 macro. Its maximum magnification is 1:3.45.
The Tamron is nowhere near as sharp as either Canon. Chromatic aberration is much, much more severe.
The only things that the Tamron has over the two Canon lenses is a continuous focal length range from 18-270mm, and lighter weight. But you pay for it in a significant loss of image quality, loss of true macro magnification, and no AF at the longer focal lengths.
In summary, you pretty much get what you pay for. One superzoom is not going to replace two L primes.
Fast Glass, can you post some pictures of you Minoltas? (300mm + 600mm)
Thanks