Yep, Dustin's review is the best yet and he doesn't usually shoot long glass. Still managed to put together a very comprehensive opinion. He doesn't have experience to compare it to the expensive primes but then I don't think anyone should bother trying that anyways as they really shouldn't be cross-shopped.
Measured sharpness and CA is slightly better than the Canon 70-300 L IS compared at focal lengths x2.
That is impressive results for the Tamron, even at 600 mm.
My only criticism of that review is he only gives the Tamron 4.5 stars for value for money. Seriously, you would have to give it 6 stars on a 5 star scale. I'm still in denial about the price. It would be nice if it shamed Canikon into lowering prices, but that hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of happening.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
My only criticism of that review is he only gives the Tamron 4.5 stars for value for money...
Makes no sense, I agree. His score for performance and value are essential the same, which would make sense only if the price were at the median value which, as you point out, couldn't be much further from the case.
I will say that a few of his samples do raise my interest in the optical performance which, just in my opinion, other samples haven't.
That stalling AF in the Chewyenfook report doesn't look good, especially for BIF, but maybe its just his example. But from reading it, I couldn't tell If it happened all the time, or just not when it was in single point AF.
