stanj wrote:
My bad! Thought he had the L version of the 70-300. There's three of them - hard to keep track
Yes Stan, since my wife is also my accountant, (seriously, she is an accountant) she would not let me spend "L" money on a lens she wouldn't use much. Especially after she found out that I could get the non L for $199.
Snopchenko wrote:
Isn't the Tamron 70-300 VC established to be consistently better?
It's not $200 and optically not much if any better. I prefered the Canon, which is much smaller. They are very close. If the Canon had real USM, it would be the clear winner for me. YMMV, I had an early Tamron and don't think it was necessarily representative.
