I've only had this lens for a few hours but am already quite impressed. I'm shooting with a Canon 60D, which I love working with, having traded up from a Rebel T1i two months ago and before that a Rebel XT which I had for 3 years.
In addition to the 70-300 VC, I own the 18-55 IS Kit Lens (which I find sharp, light, and useful), the 50 1.8, a Tamron 50-200, the Sigma 70mm DG Macro (sharpest lens I've ever used), and the Canon 55-250. In addition to this motley kit, I've used the 15-85, 70-200 F4 and F2.8, the 24-105, and the 17-40. I know what sharp looks like but also how really small the differences in sharpness are between many of these lenses.
The Tamron 70-300 is a heavy lens. It is twice the weight of the 55-250. The barrel is long and thick. Attached to the 60D the camera feels very well balanced, but I would not want to lug this thing around the world on long trips. I have several Kata bags and slings that I take on my travels (200,000 miles this year alone) and this monster won't fit in any of them attached to the camera. It can only be stored disconnected.
In your hand, the focus and zoom rings are in the opposite positions compared to the 55-250. In the field today, I found myself often looking at the lens to determine what zoom to use. But handling wise, this lens is smooth and precise.
The USD motor is fast and silent. It is spot on fast, no comparison to the 55-250, which is also not as slow as the Sigma 70 DG. I found focusing perfect. It doesn't hunt in low light and when it finds its target the VC locks on like a laser. I guess VC adds 3-4 stops. I tried taking photos on the long end at 1/13 and it was hit or miss. But at 1/20 it was pretty reliable.
IQ is really terrific. I always felt the 55-250 was sharp, and I still like the lens for light travel. But the Tamron is sharper.
I've shot the same frames with the 55-250 in the past and it is just not as sharp.
I do miss the 55 at the low end, because that is a really usable focal length, but the clarity at 300 makes up for it. And between 70 and 200, this lens is very close to what I've seen with the L F4.
Maybe I'll get used to the weight and take it on some trips. But it won't dangle around my neck for an entire day the way the 55-250 would. I'd leave it in the backpack and pull it out when I want great IQ.
After testing this lens for about a week, I have also decided to keep this lens. I would recommend adjusting exposure down 1/3 to 2/3 stop when using this lens however. The IQ is very sharp but seems to overexpose my pictures.
Good news that you like the SP 70-300 VC. I agree that it's a nice lens. I've had one for just over a month, and I think I'll keep mine, too. OTOH, many of your observations are relative. For me, the 70-300 VC is a light and compact lens that I'll use mostly for travel. It's sharp, but noticeably less sharp than the 70-200/4L IS. Even at 300mm, where you have to add a 1.4x Extender to get to 280mm with the L-zoom, the L-zoom is noticeably better. Of course, the L-zoom costs a lot more, especially if you include the cost of an Extender. The L-zoom also has significantly faster AF in low light. So, in my books the SP 70-300 VC is a very nice lens. It's the best I've tried in its price category, but its IQ and AF aren't up to the modern L-zoom performance levels, if you disregard price. What's really amazing is that the 70-200/2.8 L IS II blows away the 70-200/4L IS in every category, except price, size and weight.
Did u do any direct comparisons w/ ur L-zoom? I found the Tamron to be sharper than the 70-200 f4 non-IS. Might just be my copies of the Tamron and Canon however as there are so many variables out there.
I would like to post pictures to show what I saw. Is there any easy way to do so? Post on flickr and link here?
One handling inconvenience about this lens is the very long hood, which blocks using the lens when the hood is stored on the lens. Putting it on adds another four inches to the lens size and walking around with it extended is ungainly. I will probably buy a shorter hood to make it easier to use the lens in walk around situations.
sbadler2 wrote:
One handling inconvenience about this lens is the very long hood, which blocks using the lens when the hood is stored on the lens. Putting it on adds another four inches to the lens size and walking around with it extended is ungainly. I will probably buy a shorter hood to make it easier to use the lens in walk around situations.
Agreed. I didn't feel comfortable "pulling" the lens to zoom while the hood was stored on the lens. If you find any viable alternative hoods, please let me know.
SteveS wrote:
Tamron makes good lens for the price ratio.
Agreed.
Also, there's nothing wrong with the hood. It's optimized for the lens. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you don't use it, just remember - you're not getting as much as you could.
Wasn't sure where to host my raw samples so I uploaded them on megaupload in case anyone was interested. Pictures were taken at 200mm at f5.6, f8, and f11. Used live view, 10 second timer, and tripod to limit camera shake.
Thanks for that review. I need something in this range for my 7D as I have nothing in between 55-400mm and was thinking about this lens and even spending the money on the new 70-300L. But now may just save my money and get the Tamron.
sbadler2 wrote:
I've only had this lens for a few hours but am already quite impressed. I'm shooting with a Canon 60D, which I love working with, having traded up from a Rebel T1i two months ago and before that a Rebel XT which I had for 3 years.
In addition to the 70-300 VC, I own the 18-55 IS Kit Lens (which I find sharp, light, and useful), the 50 1.8, a Tamron 50-200, the Sigma 70mm DG Macro (sharpest lens I've ever used), and the Canon 55-250. In addition to this motley kit, I've used the 15-85, 70-200 F4 and F2.8, the 24-105, and the 17-40. I know what sharp looks like but also how really small the differences in sharpness are between many of these lenses.
The Tamron 70-300 is a heavy lens. It is twice the weight of the 55-250. The barrel is long and thick. Attached to the 60D the camera feels very well balanced, but I would not want to lug this thing around the world on long trips. I have several Kata bags and slings that I take on my travels (200,000 miles this year alone) and this monster won't fit in any of them attached to the camera. It can only be stored disconnected.
In your hand, the focus and zoom rings are in the opposite positions compared to the 55-250. In the field today, I found myself often looking at the lens to determine what zoom to use. But handling wise, this lens is smooth and precise.
The USD motor is fast and silent. It is spot on fast, no comparison to the 55-250, which is also not as slow as the Sigma 70 DG. I found focusing perfect. It doesn't hunt in low light and when it finds its target the VC locks on like a laser. I guess VC adds 3-4 stops. I tried taking photos on the long end at 1/13 and it was hit or miss. But at 1/20 it was pretty reliable.
IQ is really terrific. I always felt the 55-250 was sharp, and I still like the lens for light travel. But the Tamron is sharper.
I've shot the same frames with the 55-250 in the past and it is just not as sharp.
I do miss the 55 at the low end, because that is a really usable focal length, but the clarity at 300 makes up for it. And between 70 and 200, this lens is very close to what I've seen with the L F4.
Maybe I'll get used to the weight and take it on some trips. But it won't dangle around my neck for an entire day the way the 55-250 would. I'd leave it in the backpack and pull it out when I want great IQ.
Received the Tamron today. Did not have much time to check it out before I lost light, but did some quick and dirty tests against the 55-250 (handheld) and it seems to be quite a bit sharper. I will try some controlled tests with a tripod tommorrow hopefully!
I like mine more than my old 55-250 (which I no longer have) in the image quality department. It focuses a little faster (and also mounts on my 5D, which is a big plus). As the OP notes, it is significantly larger and heavier than the 55-250, however, so for many users the 55-250 may still be a better bet (if, like me, they intend to use it largely as a travel type zoom). My nifty 250 was pretty sharp, but I could not use polarizers with it because of the rotating front element, which was a big problem for my uses.
Spent a couple of hours out and about with the Tamron. I am very impressed. Sharp, Great VC, focus spot on, track's and pan's great. Nice color's and contrast. Definitely a keeper! Fantastic bang for the $. (Looks good on the camera too!).
Hi all, I'm a new member. I just wondering the IQ between canon 70-300 IS USM and this Tamron. I am planning to change my Canon to Tamron considering the great VC.
does anyone ever compared the IQ bwtween this two lenses?
datousteve wrote:
Did u do any direct comparisons w/ ur L-zoom? I found the Tamron to be sharper than the 70-200 f4 non-IS. Might just be my copies of the Tamron and Canon however as there are so many variables out there.
I would like to post pictures to show what I saw. Is there any easy way to do so? Post on flickr and link here?
yes and pics already on here/DPR/POTN
70-200 f/4 IS easily beat the tamron when both were at 200mm and tied it at 280mm (1.4x TC for the L)
i guess it is not bad for what it is but it's not the L-killer miracle the 17-50 is or even quite in league with the 28-75 either IMO
as you could. 
