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

My Tamron 70-300 VC is sharp as a tack. But then again I am using it on a crop body (although that would only make a difference in corner sharpness).

I looked at the Canon non-L, and in terms of centre sharpness I felt the Tamron was sharper even up to 300mm. I won't argue with the people here, and maybe some got a bad copy, but who really knows.

Even if you think the Canon is slightly sharper ( and I don't ), the Tamron is also 2/3rds the cost, supports third party TCs, comes with a hood, and has full time manual focusing.

I think the Canon L glass is all better than the Tammy, but the Canon non-L 70-300 IS is really close particularly on a cropped body.

jitteringjr said:

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.

Click to expand...

I am not saying that it isn't sharp at the longer focal lengths also, but was disputing a statement that it was not very sharp at 70mm. I find mine sharp at all focal lengths.

Yeah... I know. It was the reviews on Photozone and digitali-picture that made me buy the Tamron in the first place. That and the fact that I was able to sneak in just before the $50 rebate ended. So I got mine for $400 from Amazon.

However, mine turned out not to be quite as sharp as my Canon 70-300 IS USM. Just copy variation I am sure. At 70mm mine is fairly poor. At 300 it is very nearly as good as the Canon, but has better contrast and a flatter field. So it is pretty good there.

If I hadn't been so eager and sent the rebate form in and cut the sticker out of the box... I probably would have returned mine and hoped for one like the one you got. Oh well... As someone said, you don't use it at 70mm much anyway. At 300 it is farily descent.

My Canon is really good. Dead on and sharp. No MA required at any focal length. The Tamron requires +4 at the long end, and 0 at the short end for best performance. But like I said, at 70mm mine is not very good. It cleans up nicely by 100mm though, and from 100-300mm it is quite good and useable. Something just screws up the 70mm focal length.

Glad you got one that pleases you, Gregory I was really hoping for the same thing. You wouldn't want to trade would you?

Digital

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...

--
kind regards
Dale

No, I do not want to trade. Have you considered sending it in to Tamron for calibration? I know a couple of people that were somewhat disappointed in their copies and sent them in. They were pretty much blown away with the improvement when they came back!

Good suggestion, Gregory. After I get my rebate back I will likely do that. It is possible they can fix it.

And I was just kidding you about trading.

GregoryA said:

No, I do not want to trade. Have you considered sending it in to Tamron for calibration? I know a couple of people that were somewhat disappointed in their copies and sent them in. They were pretty much blown away with the improvement when they came back!

Click to expand...

--
kind regards
Dale

I have the lens and find it to be quite sharp. I have a Kenko 300 Pro 1.4 TC and it

works well but I'm finding that sometimes with smaller birds (avocet for instance)

I still need a little more reach. Are any of you using a 2x TC, either a Kenko or Tamron, with good results? Would appreciate some guidance.

Just got one and I have to say that I'm pretty impressed with what I had. The sharpness at 300mm may be not a WOW factor but also not a "just so-so" one. The contrast is very good.





You guys can see more in my gallery. I don't have any Canon 70-300 to compare, but this lens really doesn't put me down

--
Totally not-even-amateur
Trying to capture everything that get into my eyes

Dale Buhanan said:

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.

Click to expand...

that pretty much sums it up for me too

(although i never got to compare directly since my 70-300 non-L had been sold a couple years earlier)

Dale Buhanan said:

My Canon is really good. Dead on and sharp. No MA required at any focal length. The Tamron requires +4 at the long end, and 0 at the short end for best performance.

Click to expand...

here my experience was different though the canon need like +10 at one end and then slowly to like -9 at the other!! ugh! and even then it focused a bit randomly at 300mm

the tamron's (tried two) needed a fixed MFA for all focal lengths and were more precise at focusing (unless it got dark and then it was not so good)

Wow! The more stories like yours that I read, the more I realize just how lucky I was with the Canon that I bought. It came from Best Buy by the way.

I also realize that to balance things out in the great scheme of things, Mother Nature gave me a semi-dud Tamron. LOL

I think I'll send it back in under the warranty and see if the Tamron folks can tune it up a bit. Nothing ventured, nothing gained as they say...

Thanks for your comments Bronx...

bronxbombers said:

Dale Buhanan said:

My Canon is really good. Dead on and sharp. No MA required at any focal length. The Tamron requires +4 at the long end, and 0 at the short end for best performance.

Click to expand...

here my experience was different though the canon need like +10 at one end and then slowly to like -9 at the other!! ugh! and even then it focused a bit randomly at 300mm

the tamron's (tried two) needed a fixed MFA for all focal lengths and were more precise at focusing (unless it got dark and then it was not so good)

Click to expand...

--
kind regards
Dale

Dale Buhanan said:

Wow! The more stories like yours that I read, the more I realize just how lucky I was with the Canon that I bought. It came from Best Buy by the way.

I also realize that to balance things out in the great scheme of things, Mother Nature gave me a semi-dud Tamron. LOL

Click to expand...

although optically, using manual focusing, my results were more like yours i believe with the tamron being more contrasty at the long end but probably less sharp across the range (which surprised me since nikon peeps were talking about how it slayed their 300 2.8 nikon primes hah)

bronxbombers said:

although optically, using manual focusing, my results were more like yours i believe with the tamron being more contrasty at the long end but probably less sharp across the range (which surprised me since nikon peeps were talking about how it slayed their 300 2.8 nikon primes hah)

Click to expand...

Have they forgotten to take their medication again?

--
Leonard Migliore

bronxbombers said:

although optically, using manual focusing, my results were more like yours i believe with the tamron being more contrasty at the long end but probably less sharp across the range (which surprised me since nikon peeps were talking about how it slayed their 300 2.8 nikon primes hah)

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you on that one, Bronx... That is one of the reasons I bought mine. And just as you say, although my Canon is sharper in the center at 300, the flatter field and higher contrast of the Tamron makes it quite useable. Perhaps the Nikon 300 2.8 primes were somewhat lacking?? hah

Have a good one..

--
kind regards
Dale

Manip16 said:

My Tamron 70-300 VC is sharp as a tack. But then again I am using it on a crop body (although that would only make a difference in corner sharpness).

I looked at the Canon non-L, and in terms of centre sharpness I felt the Tamron was sharper even up to 300mm. I won't argue with the people here, and maybe some got a bad copy, but who really knows.

Even if you think the Canon is slightly sharper ( and I don't ), the Tamron is also 2/3rds the cost, supports third party TCs, comes with a hood, and has full time manual focusing.

I think the Canon L glass is all better than the Tammy, but the Canon non-L 70-300 IS is really close particularly on a cropped body.

Click to expand...

What about the Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD MACRO versus the Canon 70-300 non-L?
Anyone compared these before?

verybiglebowski said:

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

Click to expand...

What about the Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD MACRO versus the Canon 70-300 non-L?
Anyone compared these before?

verybiglebowski said:

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktor_viktor/

Click to expand...

I did, some times ago and very briefly. My findings are as listed above. Canon is slightly sharper at all FL and respective f-stops. Tamron has better contrast.

























--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktor_viktor/

logs90 said:

What about the Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD MACRO versus the Canon 70-300 non-L?

Click to expand...

That tamron is loaded with both types of CA (PF and red/cyan) , a really good one is as sharp as the canon at 300 wideopen but the CA doesn't go away even at F8 depending on the scene . best described as very cheap, can be very sharp but very flawed. it's better than the Sigma 70-300 APO Horrors though which don't have the CA but are as soft as Poo (not tried the OS sigma however)

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

tpg77 said:

I have the lens and find it to be quite sharp. I have a Kenko 300 Pro 1.4 TC and it

works well but I'm finding that sometimes with smaller birds (avocet for instance)

I still need a little more reach. Are any of you using a 2x TC, either a Kenko or Tamron, with good results? Would appreciate some guidance.

Click to expand...

I have the Kenko 2x pro 300 DG & 70-300 VC USD, and I'm very happy with the results. Also, I just recently found out that it will actually AF in good light even fully zoomed out, if one of the outer focus points is used (this is my experience with the 60D). What a pleasant surprise!

Here's a cropped example I've posted before. This was shot at f/6.3

UKKISAVOSTA --Thanks for your reply and the sample bird shot. It looks pretty sharp to me, especially for a 2X TC. I was in a camera store Saturday in Okla. City and the salesperson said that they would give very poor results. Of course, they didn't have any in stock and tried to sell me a Tamron 200-500 lens. Very nice but I can't afford it and that's why I wanted the 2X. I hope a few others who have 2X on this forum will share their thoughts on the 2X for this lens.

tpg77 said:

UKKISAVOSTA --Thanks for your reply and the sample bird shot. It looks pretty sharp to me, especially for a 2X TC. I was in a camera store Saturday in Okla. City and the salesperson said that they would give very poor results. Of course, they didn't have any in stock and tried to sell me a Tamron 200-500 lens. Very nice but I can't afford it and that's why I wanted the 2X. I hope a few others who have 2X on this forum will share their thoughts on the 2X for this lens.

Click to expand...

No problem. I think the results are acceptable, but this combo requires lots of light and/or a fairly recent body with good high-ISO performance to work well. Here are a couple of other test shots I've taken with the Kenko @ 600mm (wide open shot is a bit overexposed). These were taken hand-held, and they show that the IQ doesn't take much of a hit even with the 2x TC, and the VC works very well even at 600mm. Sadly haven't had the time to go out and really put these to work.

Taken at f/8



crop @ f/8



Wide open



crop @ wide open