Tamron 70-300mm vs Canon 7-300m, which is better?

[Yhi]

Hi everyone,

I am hoping to get a new telephoto sometime by the end of the year and I am having trouble picking between;

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras - Amazon.com: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo


or

Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD for Canon Digital SLR Cameras - Amazon.com: Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics


----

I have read the reviews and such... but still I am a little worried on which one would be a better deal. There are a lot more reviews for the canon compared to the Tamron. I am also worried that the Tamron will not be as sharp as the Canon lens.

I can see that the Tamron is cheaper but other then that.. that is all I can base it off of. Any suggestions?

 

[j-dogg]

honestly if you're going to pony up that much cash, 70-200 f4L all day.

the VC on the Tamron is pretty bad ass though my 18-270 has it. i didn't even know they made a 70-300 VC.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

agreed,look into the Canon 70-200 f/4L if you can, otherwise go with the Tamron. The VC on Tamron's lenses is better than any other consumer lens stabilization i've ever seen. The VC on the 18-270 and 28-300 is insane.

 

[j-dogg]

The VC on the 18-270 and 28-300 is insane.

i can hand-hold 1/13th of a second @ ISO 100 and get a crisp image. First image stabilized lens I ever owned tripped me out when I first shot it. I've gone as low as 1/4 sec. :thumbup:

 

[Yhi]

The VC on the 18-270 and 28-300 is insane.

i can hand-hold 1/13th of a second @ ISO 100 and get a crisp image. First image stabilized lens I ever owned tripped me out when I first shot it. I've gone as low as 1/4 sec. :thumbup:

at what focal length did you take those at?

 

[j-dogg]

18 to 85-ish, I could go into telephoto mode wide open and manage 1/25th with the stabilizer. It's very effective, the only downfall is the AF is slow and it hunts in low light or when your subject is large and with little detail (clear sky) My pictures were of a sunset, so there was more detail with clouds in the sky and it was easier to focus.

EXCELLENT travel lens for the money, I'm writing a review on it and should have it live on the site this week. I bought it for travel and for shooting trains (telephoto and super wide all in one lens = no lens change with an oncoming 60mph train) and so far I am VERY impressed. For $500 nothing out there touches it.

Here's some sample images, no filters and minor post. Handheld. Shot through a Rebel XTi, so you know your camera will love it.

 

[SLRJoe]

Hi, I've done a few video reviews on the Canon and Tamron 70-300mm which you might be interested in where I compare them against each other -

Tamron 70-300mm -
Canon 70-300mm-
Sigma 70-300mm-

I personally think that if you spend the money on the Canon you'll definitely get a superior lens, its quicker and quieter, has the lovely IS and produces nice and sharp images. But obviously it's a lot more money. So, if it was me, i'd spend that amount of money on a different lens and get a cheaper 70-300mm. So in terms of a cheaper 70-300mm, I would personally go for the Sigma 70-300mm rather than the Tamron 70-300mm. I found I had better results with the Sigma, and the lens body felt more sturdy.

Hope this helps!

 

[cfusionpm]

The 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS was the first lens I bought to compliment my kit lens way back when I had my Rebel several years ago. I used it quite a bit in many situations and it served me very well up untill I replaced it with a fancy shmancy f/2.8 one.

If you're working in bright daylight and on a crop sensor, you will get good results almost all the time. It's decently sharp in the center from 70mm to 200mm, even wide open. The higher end of the 200-300mm range gets pretty soft though, even stopped down. Corners on a crop sensor aren't much of an issue, but on a full frame, it will become increasingly softer above about 150mm, even stopped down. You can see a detailed breakdown here.

It's a lens capable of taking some great pics in good conditions, but starts to fall short when you're trying to shoot long distances in low light with wide apertures. I actually still have mine just in case I want to go out with a tele zoom and don't want a giant, heavy, white, attention-drawing lens on my body.

It's not the best lens in the world, but it definately has adtantages over the similarly priced 70-200 f/4L, IMO. The reach difference between 200 and 300 plays a lot when shooting things at a distance. For motorsports, I found 200mm came up short more often than not. Granted, I had to shoot from a farther away spot than dedicated media, it would have been nice to get tighter shots and not HAVE to rely on cropping every one. Plus the IS really helps in framing the image in addition to allowing more freedom with hand-held shooting. In terms of image quality though, the f/4L will produce a better image at every focal length and every aperture.

 

[Yhi]

Hi, I've done a few video reviews on the Canon and Tamron 70-300mm which you might be interested in where I compare them against each other -


I personally think that if you spend the money on the Canon you'll definitely get a superior lens, its quicker and quieter, has the lovely IS and produces nice and sharp images. But obviously it's a lot more money. So, if it was me, i'd spend that amount of money on a different lens and get a cheaper 70-300mm. So in terms of a cheaper 70-300mm, I would personally go for the Sigma 70-300mm rather than the Tamron 70-300mm. I found I had better results with the Sigma, and the lens body felt more sturdy.

Hope this helps!

Thank you so much for the vids. These will actually help out A LOT.

 

[Yhi]

Thank you all for all the help. I think I know which one I will be going for.

I'm thinking the 70-300mm canon. Just because of the USM and IS that it has. Also I seem to notice that canon lenses have very crisp photographs.

 

[j-dogg]

Yeah upper-echelon Canon glass is tack-sharp, you get what you pay for :thumbup:

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Yeah upper-echelon Canon glass is tack-sharp, you get what you pay for :thumbup:

-Except for the 28-300L, that's a dog of a lens for $2000+
-The 16-35L isn't really that great, even the new one. The Nikon 16-35 and 14-24 are much better
-The 14L (first one) is awful. About as bad as the Nikon 14D.
-The 50 f/1.2L isn't too super for the price.

There's a couple more L lenses that aren't really too super. Just like how not all Nikon's pro lenses are great.

Nikon's 70-200VR (first one) is great on DX, but OK on FF.
Nikon's 14mm f/2.8D is one of the worst lenses i've ever used, TERRIBLE lens.
I've never been impressed with Nikon's 12-24.
Nikon's new 85mm doesn't seem to be as good as it should.

and again, there are a couple that i can't remember off the top of my head.

The Minolta...sorry. The Sony 35G is a lousy lens, but most of the zeiss branded lenses are great. Actually, come to think of it alot of the minolta or tamron lenses in general that have been "converted" for Sony aren't really that great..

so it all depends, everyone makes diamonds, everyone makes lemons.