Warning... this is probably gonna be quite a lengthy post!

This is the US Capitol Building taken this morning around 7 am.  The light on this building can be really cool in the morning.  This probably would have been better if I could have waited another 30 minutes or so for some more sun, but I don't remember what time they turn the lights off on the dome and I didn't want to chance it. The other morning, there were some gorgeous oranges and reds, but I only had my short lens and couldn't get the framing right.

Speaking of lenses, this is the first shot I've posted that I've taken with my Tamron lens.  It's functionally equivalent to 480 mm at this zoom level (yes, I took my tripod to work today).  This shot was actually taken about 4 blocks away from the building (check Flickr for the map if interested).  While I like the zoom ability, I'm going to have to become accustomed to dealing with lens flare with this lens.  You can see the flares as a couple of little pink dots to the left of the dome.  Those are presumably from the closest street light, which also has a few flare spots in it if you view the full size version.

This shot is totally unmodified, other than resizing for Flickr.  Hence, it's a touch on the dark side (I normally underexpose a little bit to get shadow details and then use Photoshop's levels to get the exposure back up).   The colors were still good and the picture is pretty sharp, so I'm glad I took the time to set everything up and get this one.  If the weather is similar, I may go back tomorrow and wait a bit longer to see if I can get some better light and/or find out when they turn off the lights.

BTW... since I have all of these historical and political buildings on my blog, some of you may have gotten the impression that I'm in to politics.  I'm not... at all!  But, the buildings are cool.  I really couldn't care less that this is "The Capitol Building" (sorry Mom), to me, it's just a cool building with good lighting. ;)  This is DC... it's nearly impossible NOT to take a picture that doesn't have some kind of political drama surrounding it.  Trust me, they're just pictures. 

BTW... thanks to my nameless friend for pointing out that I forgot to include the actual picture.  He's not nameless because I'm protecting his identity or anything... he just doesn't deserve a name any more. :P

Schweet!  It finally arrived at the local shop and I went to pick it up after work today.  What is it, you ask? Ok, maybe you don't ask, but I'm gonna spill anyways...  My Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 lens! 

I originally started this entry to talk about my new lens, but I'm going to do that in a separate post a bit later.  I want to talk about lenses in general now.

For those not familiar with my new lens, let me first qualify that the name "Tamron" is generally associated with the word "cheap".   "Sigma" is generally not quite as cheap, but is also firmly planted in the realm of cheapness.  Tamron and Sigma make lenses for just about every model of consumer DSLR known to man.  Canon, however, makes lenses only for Canon cameras.  Nikon (Nikor) generally makes lenses only for Nikon cameras.  So, the general rule of thumb is that if you want a new lens, it's probably going to be from either your camera manufacturer, or Tamron or Sigma.  There are exceptions, but I'll leave that explanation to someone else.   Pretty simple so far.  So, if you're an amateur on a budget, you drool over some of the manufacturer lenses and save forever to spend what is usually an ungodly sum of money for a really slick lens, or you decide which Tamron or Sigma you can afford and you plunk down your duckets and get yer lens.  This does get a bit more confusing however, which you'd already start to realize if you've REALLY been following my blog. ;)

Because... not all manufacturers lenses are better than the so-called "cheap" brands.  Case in point... my Tamron vs the closest equivalent Canon lens.   The closest Canon lens I can find to compare with my Tamron is the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III.  I blogged about that earlier.  It's junk...  Three day old carp!  I can't believe Canon is putting their name on that.  You get the idea. 

The Canon and the Tamron cost about the same.  The Tamron has a macro mode, better internal mechanics (I'll talk about that in my next post about the lens itself), and a lens hood.  I'm not going to get started on how much Canon wants for a simple lens hood, but suffice to say, it ain't worth it when you're working with the bottom of the barrel lenses, IMO.  

Ack... I'm rambling.  What's my point? Not all manufacturers' lenses are great.  Not all "cheap brand" lenses are junk.  Do your research and make sure you use a shop that will let you try stuff out and take it back if it doesn't work or you don't like it!

Note: I'm not bashing Sigma or Tamron, if they weren't in the market, I wouldn't have my current lens.  By the way they do have some really NICE lenses too...  Like this monster.

Okay, any serious photographers can stop reading right now... Due to my finances (and my family finance minister), I'm going to be talking about some "bottom of the barrel" lenses here. ;)

I picked up a new Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III lens yesterday.  I was actually looking for a Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 lens, but the Canon was a bit cheaper and it was in stock at my local dealer.  I figured they would be about the same, with the exception that the Canon wasn't a macro lens.  I had the guys at the shop look up the specs on both lenses and the difference in focusing distance between the Tamron and Canon was only about a foot, so I figured I could live with the Canon.  Unfortunately, the Canon ain't all I thought it would be. :(

There's nothing wrong with the optics that I can tell.  The DOF is very nice, which is what I was looking for.  The magnification is also pretty sweet, especially with the 1.6x magnification factor I get from using the XTi/400D...  that basically makes the 75-300 act like a 120-480mm lens.  But... 

The mechanics on the Canon lens are REALLY bad!  The Zoom control is near the base of lens and the focal ring is near the front.  This is basically backwards from most lenses.  Not that big of deal, but still "odd".  That's just an nagging issue to me, not a deal breaker.  The major issue is the zoom control.  It's "notchy".  It basically feels like the mechanics in the lens are binding up.  This means that when zooming, the action is "jerky".  It's impossible to do a smooth zoom.  This is most telling when you're trying to get to an exact focal length.  With the Canon lens, I've found that I have to overzoom, then pull back to get the zoom where I wanted it.  It's a bit of a pain to deal with on a regular basis.  I did some Googling on this lens and found that I'm not the only one with this issue, so it's obviously a "design feature", not an error with the manufacturing.

I should also mention that this lens is quite bulky and heavy.  It probably weighs more than the XTi/400D does.

The final straw is the focusing mechanism.  It's an AF lens, with a switch to convert to manual focus.  Unfortunately, the AF is REALLY slow, has an incredibly hard time tracking stuff and doesn't allow you to manually correct it without throwing the switch (this appears to be the way that non-USM Canon lenses work - get a USM version if you want to override the AF).  The length of time it takes to autofocus when zoomed is ridiculous.  So...

The Canon lens is going back and I'm going to get the local shop to order the Tamron for me.  I'll post up a comparison when I get the chance.