[koulang]

That is interesting point. I own Canon so there is no alternative beside getting Tamron 70-300mm VC. Canon's 70-300mm IS lags behind Nikon's and Tamron's especially wide open which I use the most. There is no Tamron lens available for Canon's mount yet. I read a lot of reviews from the owners of this lens who also have experience with Nikon, mentioning that Tamron surpasses image quality especially from 200-300mm wide open.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Koulang' timestamp='1288234135' post='3824']

That is interesting point. I own Canon so there is no alternative beside getting Tamron 70-300mm VC. Canon's 70-300mm IS lags behind Nikon's and Tamron's especially wide open which I use the most. There is no Tamron lens available for Canon's mount yet. I read a lot of reviews from the owners of this lens who also have experience with Nikon, mentioning that Tamron surpasses image quality especially from 200-300mm wide open.

[/quote]

The Canon does NOT lag behind the Nikon, wide open. No idea where you get that from. People who actually really used both the Nikon and the Canon are surprised that the Canon lens is sharper, giving how in Canon forums people like to bitch about gear, where on Nikon forums people like the adore every Nikon product, even if it is of questionable quality.



The Canon 70-300 IS USM is a very good lens for its type, and the Nikon is not better. The Sony is said to be a bit better, it is also more expensive. The Tamron appears to be even better, as does the new L from Canon.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288265536' post='3825']giving how in Canon forums people like to bitch about gear, where on Nikon forums people like the adore every Nikon product, even if it is of questionable quality.

[/quote]



Plain Canon fanboy crap.

[Guest]

Go out and take photos, all of you, please! USe Canon, Nikon, Tamron or anything else and post some nice pics here. This will be much more pleasant than this useless discussion. Thanks.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1288376137' post='3833']

Plain Canon fanboy crap.

[/quote]

Can you stop your personal attacks? What I wrote is pretty factual. I think this is the 2nd time you come with your stupid attacks.

[Steinar1]

[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1288376137' post='3833']

Plain Canon fanboy crap.

[/quote]



Could we please have more civilized language? It only reflects on you, but it is quite a nuisance! Vieux Loup

[Guest]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1288434467' post='3841']

Could we please have more civilized language? It only reflects on you, but it is quite a nuisance! Vieux Loup

[/quote]

True, bad language on sammys part. But I it would also help the peace on this forum a lot if people (e.g. brightcolors) would abstain from stating general beliefs which throw a bad light on a whole group of people (e.g Nikon users) and can easily be taken as an insult.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288432885' post='3839']

Can you stop your personal attacks? What I wrote is pretty factual. I think this is the 2nd time you come with your stupid attacks.

[/quote]



Well, I guess the issue is that what you think is factual looks very biased (pro-Canon, anti-Nikon) to others (both here and on dpreview).

[anyscreenamewilldo]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1288429429' post='3838']

Go out and take photos, all of you, please! USe Canon, Nikon, Tamron or anything else and post some nice pics here.......

[/quote]

. . . yes please, new pictures from unusual unposters for a different point of view . . .



. . . and on a totally separate matter i'm hoping for a few of klaus's holiday happy snaps - always worth a look - please

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1288462030' post='3844']

Well, I guess the issue is that what you think is factual looks very biased (pro-Canon, anti-Nikon) to others (both here and on dpreview).

[/quote]

Let me guess, you use Nikon. Now go read my post again, and try to find something that was not factual.