Reading mode: Light Dark

Tamron 70-300mm VC USD vs Canon 70-300mm IS USM

Go to last post
I purchased the Tamron as soon as it came out. I found the images too soft so I returned it and got the Canon which is much better. There are a lot of good reviews on the Tamron, so I may have had a bad copy.
 
MagicRandy said:
I purchased the Tamron as soon as it came out. I found the images too soft so I returned it and got the Canon which is much better. There are a lot of good reviews on the Tamron, so I may have had a bad copy.
Click to expand...
I got one for Nikon and, like yours, it was soft. I sent it back for repair and now it's fine. Can't say if it's better than the Canon 70-300 though. It needs to be at f/8 to get decent results at 300mm.
--
Leonard Migliore
 
I have both lenses here. I was excited to buy the new Tamron, since I was hoping it would be an upgrade to my Canon 70-300 IS USM. However, the Canon is sharper -- at both the long and the short end. The Tamron does have better build, and I believe better somewhat contrast. But no doubt about it, the Canon is sharper. Like the others have said, the Tamron is a little soft. Soooo... Oh well... 'Buy cheap, buy twice'. I guess I need to save my pennies for the L lens.
GuardianFlash said:
Anybody have experience with both of these lens? How does the newly released Tamron 70-300mm VC USD compared to the Canon's?
Click to expand...
--
kind regards
Dale
 
GuardianFlash said:
Anybody have experience with both of these lens? How does the newly released Tamron 70-300mm VC USD compared to the Canon's?
Click to expand...
not at the same time, unfortunately
but i can say for sure:
tamron focuses more quickly
tamron focuses more accurately

tamron stabilizer is more effective (when it is acting weird, it has a different feel than teh canon ones and can do weird sudden jumps and such if you are not used to it)
tamron is better built

my feeling is:

the tamron might actually not really deliver any better image quality, maybe a bit more macro-scale contrast/color at 300mm although maybe a little less sharp actually??, maybe a little worse IQ than the canon under 220mm, it really didn't seem to touch my 70-200 and looked more like that one with the TC on

i don't know i didn't see the it's nearly the equal to the 300 2.8 prime that the early nikon guys were raving about out of either copy tried

from all the talk i was expecting it to be all that and more in terms of raw IQ, especially since my tamron 17-50 had been so stunning and even beating my old L glass but the 70-300 VC just seemed kinda ok
 
It has been reported that there were some QC issues in the first batch of lenses (S/N below 5000).

I have an early copy (s/n 58xx), and am very happy with the lens. Haven't compared it with the Canon myself, though.
 
Had a Canon 70-300mm IS (non-L) and sold it to try the new Tamron 70-300 VC. My wife uses a Tammy 18-270 VC and it's a nice lens (much better than one would think!).

But the Canon was noticeably superior optically in head to head tests. The Tamron was better built, better VC and focused OK. The softness led me to sell it and re-purchase the Canon 70-300mm IS (non-L).

Then I sold it and bought the Canon 70-200F4 L IS with a Canon 1.4x MKII extender. Well,the Canon 70-200 F4 L IS was better cropped to 300mm than the 70-300 lenses. I had always thought that a TC would be better than a crop from a 200mm to equal 300mm. I was stunned. Plus I gain a stop! And the IS is superb (as well as build, doesn't extend when focusing/zooming, ring IS, FTM focus,etc).

Fred
 
I had both and test them head to head. I used 2 Tamron copies. My findings are the same as many here reports. Canon was a bit sharper wide open at all focal lengths, but Tamron has much nicer contrast. In low light, Canon locked the focus faster then Tamron. In a good light Tamron is a bit faster. IS might be better with Tamron, but not significantly. I decided to keep Tamron, because of the FTM focus (which I use often with my other lenses), non rotating front element, and because it was new.

Now I am facing dilemma - which lens to take with me on a hiking tour to Alps. 70-200 f2.8 L IS II or Tamron. IQ vs weight and size...

I started some tests couple of weeks ago, and today I did some more. I am interested in the f-stops 8-11. At those f-stops Tamron performs very nice. The difference in resolution is visible at 100%, but not that much as I thought it will be. I am close to decision to take Tamron, not only because of the weight of the lens alone, but also because of a stability with Gitzo GT 1541.
If you like, you can take a look at recent comparison in my gallery

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/736623614/albums/canon70-200-2-8ii-vs-tamron70-300-usd
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktor_viktor/
 
GuardianFlash said:
I went ahead and ordered the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD.
Click to expand...
I think you will be very happy with it. My Tamron is acually sharper than my 55-250 is and 70-300 is and the photo's have more POP!. Most reviews put the Tammi ahead of the 70-300mm is and the feature set is much better!
 
You will like the Tamron, good choice. I had both to compare with and picked the Tamron over the Canon. I took many comparison photos and spent hours comparing the results, the Tamron was the obvious winner although the Canon isn't a bad lens.
 
How fast does the Tamron focus? Can you compare it to say 24-105, 85/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4? Or is it closer to that of the 55--250?
 
jitteringjr said:
How fast does the Tamron focus? Can you compare it to say 24-105, 85/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4? Or is it closer to that of the 55--250?
Click to expand...
I can't compare with the other lenses but it is definitely faster than the EF-S 55-250 IS. In my experience the 55-250 has a very low success rate at egrets in flight and most of the sharp ones are when it is flying across and not moving away.

With the Tamron 70-300VC I was able to track my nephew taking a plunge over a 200m gorge and swinging on a 50m rope. Going down and away from me almost all shots I took were perfectly focused on him. I was even changing focal lengths as he went farther. Those that were blurred were focused either on the rocks or plants so they were my fault.
 
The Canon is sharper wideopen at 70mm, the Tamron is sharper at 300mm, if you leave the tamron set to F5.6, it'll be stunning across the range whereas the Canon only needs F4 at the wide end but F8 at the long end - this is pixelpeeped both on 22Mp full frame and 18Mp APS ..........

The Tamron has Ring USM, Full time MF, solid build and a better IS system - the canon is basically the crappy old 75-300IS with better optics stuffed in so you're talking bottom feeder build, Micro USM , rotating front end and solid focus ring .. I couldn't believe they re-used the crappy 75-300 mechanics in the 70-300 when it came out, it was way below the 75-300IS's price and abilities even in 1998 let alone around 10yrs later when the 70-300 came out.

--
A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge

 
Strange. I think you must've had a bad copy of the Tamron, because it should be on par or sharper than the Canon 70-300 IS non-L. The 70-200 f/4 L is obviously sharper, but it is to be expected.

I have used the Tamron successfully with a 2x Kenko TC, and I can shoot wide open and even crop the image, and it's still usable. Below is a cropped example shot wide open at 600mm, which I've posted previously. It is sharpened, obviously.

 
In the main, I agree with your comments, Adam. I have both lenses and have run several head to head comparisons. I must have gotten a stellar copy of the Canon 70-300 IS USM or a sub-average copy of the Tamron, because my Canon is sharper than the Tamron, which was rather disappointing.

At 70mm the Tamron is quite mediocre at all f-stops. It nearly ties the Canon at 300mm, but the Canon still edges it. My Canon is really good, but suffers from all of the physical shortcomings that you mentioned. The Tamron is built better, focuses faster, has better contrast, excellent stabilization, but is not as sharp. It is also larger and heavier -- and less expensive. I'd call it an OK lens, but the photos, just don't satisfy.

The Canon continues to surprise me with just how good it is -- optically. Physically it is bottom rung.

For the time being, the 70-300L is out of my price range, but now it is on my want list.

Buy cheap, buy twice...
AdamT said:
The Canon is sharper wideopen at 70mm, the Tamron is sharper at 300mm, if you leave the tamron set to F5.6, it'll be stunning across the range whereas the Canon only needs F4 at the wide end but F8 at the long end - this is pixelpeeped both on 22Mp full frame and 18Mp APS ..........

The Tamron has Ring USM, Full time MF, solid build and a better IS system - the canon is basically the crappy old 75-300IS with better optics stuffed in so you're talking bottom feeder build, Micro USM , rotating front end and solid focus ring .. I couldn't believe they re-used the crappy 75-300 mechanics in the 70-300 when it came out, it was way below the 75-300IS's price and abilities even in 1998 let alone around 10yrs later when the 70-300 came out.
Click to expand...
--
kind regards
Dale
 
Dale Buhanan said:
At 70mm the Tamron is quite mediocre at all f-stops. It nearly ties the Canon at 300mm, but the Canon still edges it.
Click to expand...
sounds like a dud Tamron, mine is Canon sharp at F5.6 70mm and the Canon needed F8 to match the Tamron's F5.6 at 300mm .. saying that, sample variation is Rife thesedays, canon and Sigma are the worst, tamron have their real bad days too. I had a Tamron 70-300Di (the really cheap one) which was as sharp as the Canon 70-300IS at 300mm wideopen, amazing for a lens with such a bad Rep (though the CA was very heavy) my 18-270VC (NON PZD) is as sharp as the 70-300VC in the middle at 270mm wideopen and sharper than the Canon or a Nikon 70-300VR !!, the 18mm end is sharp edge to edge wideopen - I've still yet to see a non-decentered copy of the 16-35L in either guise or a Tamron 28-75 which is usable at 75mm wider than F5.6 .

I really wish these companies could put lenses together consistently

--
A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge

 
The Tamron VC is razor sharp at 70mm. Look at some of the lens compaison charts and it smokes many much higher priced lenses at 70mm.
 
GregoryA said:
The Tamron VC is razor sharp at 70mm. Look at some of the lens compaison charts and it smokes many much higher priced lenses at 70mm.
Click to expand...
OK, but who buys a 70-300 lens to use primarily at 70mm? I am pretty sure most people would rather see razor sharp at 300mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top