Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

	Moderated by: Fred Miranda
	Username   Password FM Forum Rules Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell    end    Archive 2011 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC

jasonpatrick Offline • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #1 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC Has anyone used both? I'm interested in image quality, most importantly at the long end. Right now I have the Canon, and have just purchased (but not yet received) the Tamron off the B&S board here. I was a little disapointed in the noise out of the Canon model...it has USM, but the old kind that spins the MF ring, and while it's not too loud, the IS makes a noise while engaging and disengaging so overall, not very quiet. I thought I might be able to jump the gun and get a comparison from someone that's used one or both. Overall, used, the Tamron is about 100 less expensive than the Canon. I think the next step for me is going to be a 70-200mm f/4 IS with a 1.4x converter, but I'm not in a position to make that step quiet yet. I'm basically looking for the best possible image quality at the longer end for the best possible price. IS is a must for me. I got this one last week at 300mm f/7.1, 1/100, ISO 640, cropped about 50% of the image away. Edited on Dec 21, 2011 at 09:40 PM · View previous versions Dec 21, 2011 at 09:03 PM

GC5 Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #2 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC My Canon 70-300 was much sharper than the Tamron 70-300 VC I had. Could have been copy variation, since the Tamron has a decent reputation, but I didn't like it. Dec 21, 2011 at 09:19 PM

fotonix Offline • • • Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #3 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC I looked at this choice a few years back - comparing the Canon with the cheaper Tamron and Sigma. In the end I found someone selling their Canon and have enjoyed this lens ever since. For the 100 price difference, go with the Canon - you will be grateful in 3-4 years time when its still working 100% (where the plastic immitation lenses are in the bin). Dec 21, 2011 at 09:30 PM

jasonpatrick Offline • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #4 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC The new Tamron that I'm comparing the Canon to is the VC model. This has only been out since Sept. of 2010. The older Tamron 70-300 and the newer one aren't even in the same ball park. The old one is compared to Canon's 75-300mm... Dec 21, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Scorpio69 Offline • • Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #5 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC Just shot this last week with the "new" Tamron 70-300mm. 1/640, f8, 300mm. Really like this lens...with the $100 dollar rebate paid 400 few months ago, now it's even cheaper at around 350...it's hard to beat. Solid lens, nice and light. Not cropped image. VC is very good...even in my shaky hands. Dec 21, 2011 at 10:50 PM

jasonpatrick Offline • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #6 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC nice image scorpio. Thanks for sharing. When I have the Tamron in hand, I'll do some comparison shots. Dec 23, 2011 at 02:12 AM

Imagemaster Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #7 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC What would be the point of getting a 70-200 f4 with a 1.4x TC? If you want more reach than a 70-300, save up a get a 100-400. Dec 23, 2011 at 02:56 AM

jasonpatrick Offline • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #8 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC I liked the 70-200mm range when I had it, but ended up getting rid of it because I wanted IS (couldn't afford the IS version). From what I understand the IQ on the 100-400 isn't as good as the 70-200mm f/4 IS. I would get the teleconverter only for the times when I wanted a bit extra reach (I only rarely shoot birds/wildlife). I also like the size of the 70-200 vs the 100-400. I haven't ruled the longer lens out though. Dec 23, 2011 at 03:04 AM

Imagemaster Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #9 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC jasonpatrick wrote: From what I understand the IQ on the 100-400 isn't as good as the 70-200mm f/4 IS. So what? It is very good and gives you double the reach, and a 1.4x TC on the 70-200 will only give you 280mm. And a 2x TC on the 70-200 will give you garbage. Dec 23, 2011 at 03:31 AM

RobertLynn Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #10 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC Imagemaster wrote: jasonpatrick wrote: From what I understand the IQ on the 100-400 isn't as good as the 70-200mm f/4 IS. So what? It is very good and gives you double the reach, and a 1.4x TC on the 70-200 will only give you 280mm. And a 2x TC on the 70-200 will give you garbage. +9386587591827598579857 AND +709285709285792578925792579252 Dec 23, 2011 at 03:39 AM

jasonpatrick Offline • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #11 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC Def. no 2x converter. . 1.4 would be as far as I would go....and not very often I don't think. Mostly a moot point for me as I don't have the $$ to throw at a higher end lens right now. Christmas and my wife's 30th birthday are gonna set me back plenty for now. Dec 23, 2011 at 04:58 AM

Fr3d Offline • • Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #12 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC Had the 70-200mm f/ 4 L and have a Tamron 70-300 VC. The Tamron sits right between the 70-200mm f/4.0 L with and without 1.4x TC. And it is still better than the 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II with 2x TC II. Dec 23, 2011 at 05:04 PM

skibum5 Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #13 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC "I'm basically looking for the best possible image quality at the longer end for the best possible price. IS is a must for me. " In that case then why look at the 70-200 f/4 IS when the 70-300L IS has noticeably better image quality above 200mm than the 70-200+TC? Plus you don't need to bother with swapping the TC on and off, which is a major drag. At least with my copies, although it may vary, my 70-300L was sharper at 70mm and slightly so at 200mm too (although slightly less sharp at 100 and 165 and less sharp at 135) and, as I said, it was noticeably sharper above 200mm. And if reach is really the main concern then the 100-400L gives more reach for sure. Nothing makes up for an extra 100mm. Even an average at best copy of the 100-400L would beat the best copy 70-300L or 70-200+TC upscaled, at 400mm. Dec 23, 2011 at 07:22 PM

Pixel Perfect Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #14 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC Just get the 100-400L, it's a damn fine lens if you want the reach and IQ. Talk that its not good is complete and utter BS. If you want quality and reach, there's no cheap option. Tacking TC's onto short FL lenses is not the answer. Dec 23, 2011 at 09:15 PM

EB-1 Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #15 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC jasonpatrick wrote: I think the next step for me is going to be a 70-200mm f/4 IS with a 1.4x converter, but I'm not in a position to make that step quiet yet. I'm basically looking for the best possible image quality at the longer end for the best possible price. IS is a must for me. You cannot have both. If you can wait for the upcoming 200-400/4 that should have excellent IQ, but it is heavy and more expensive. I would avoid the 70-200/4 IS and a 1.4x TC for wildlife if you already have a 70-300 on the way. Get the 100-400 for now until you can move up to longer lenses. If you get a 500/4 later on, then the 100-400 will be your shorter lens. EBH Dec 24, 2011 at 12:45 AM

jasonpatrick Offline • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #16 · Canon 70-300mm IS vs Tamron 70-300mm VC I didn't realize that the teleconverters took that much away from the IQ. Looks like the 100-400 is the general consensus for reach, or possibly the 70-300L if I don't "need" 400. Right now the plan is to upgrade in 6 months or so if I keep hitting the limitations of the less expensive zoom. Thanks for all the help! So far with just some shots around the house, I'm seeing the Canon sharper from 70-200 or so with the Tamron taking the edge (slightly) at the long end. Canon's IS is smoother in the viewfinder (and it has 2 modes for tracking with servo), but I can't really see an edge one over the other in results. If this was going to be used to track at all, the Canon would win hands down. The Tamron is a bit heavier (1lb 12oz verses 1lb 7 oz of the canon) and it zooms in reverse. Not a whole lot of differences. The Tamron holds up really well. Dec 25, 2011 at 10:14 PM

	end FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Lost your password?