Tamron 70-300 vs. Canon 70-200 f4

[booggerg]

Hi I'm looking to add a good telephoto lens to my arsenal. I'm torn between these two lenses, now I understand the Tamron has more reach, but the L lens is an L lens! Please give me your insight on the image quality difference between the two.

Also, the Tamron is advertised as a Macro capable lens. What makes a lens a Macro lens? would it simply be short focus distance? Is the Canon macro capable?

thanks!

[Perfect_10]

What is the difference in price :?:

In my book it has to be the Canon (cos I've got one) :wink:

[booggerg]

The Tamron can be had for $150 brandnew :shock:

[Perfect_10]

Is that the LD version .. if so I had one .. used it once .. and sold it on. Noisy motor, slow focus, nad the controls worked in reverse to Canons

[booggerg]

It is the LD version. How do you mean that it worked in reverse?

I do think the price difference does make up for the lesser AF performance of the Tamron.

How is its optical quality?

[su719]

boogerg,

I have seen the reviews on Amazon and Photography review highly praising this lens. So that is why I went out and bought it. I have not had much chance to use it yet, but the F4 shutter speed of the 70-200 helps when shooting full tele. However I am not sure it is worth the cost. I hope to get achance to experiment with this lens this weekend and can post me results.

[booggerg]

Thanks for the comment. Im not doubting that the Canon Lens is excellent. But is the Tamron really $400 worser than the Canon?

[RichardtheSane]

Thanks for the comment. Im not doubting that the Canon Lens is excellent. But is the Tamron really $400 worser than the Canon?

probably

But that depends on how you value $400

If you are not looking for a lens that will do the job of being a telephoto then buy the tamron.

If you are looking for a lens that you will never have a hope in hell of blaming for a bad shot then buy the 70-200F4. It also happends to the the best value piece of L glass out there and possibly the sharpest L series zoom canon do.

Your choice. THink about how much $400 is really worth to you.

As for working in reverse - the zoom and focus ring turn the opposite way to the Canon. Not a problem, unless all your other lenses or the lenses you use most are Canon.

[Andy_T]

I don't think that the lens you should compare the lens to is the 70-200 F/4, but rather the Canon 75-300 consumer lens. Here the price and performance differences should not be as big.

To stress an analogy ... you can always compare a VW Golf to a Mercedes S class and claim that it is 'so much less expensive', but the more correct comparison would most likely be against the A class :wink:

Another interesting fact, however, is that Nikon obviously markets this lens under their own label ... take a look at http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300af.htm (if this is the lens you are referring to).

Best regards,
Andy

[booggerg]

Is there big difference between 200 and 300? I can quantify the difference 100mm adds on the wide end of the specturm, but not on the telephoto end. In other words, is the maginification factor linear?

[Ogrt48]

That Tamron lens sucks to say the least. Get the Canon 75-300 if you want a cheap lens.

[Perfect_10]

That Tamron lens sucks to say the least. Get the Canon 75-300 if you want a cheap lens.

I have to agree. This was the lens I got rid of when I bought the 70-200L. My wife owns the Canon 75-300 consumer one .. even that was better than the Tamron. It looked real nice, but performance was crap .. and I mean that.

It is the LD version. How do you mean that it worked in reverse?

I do think the price difference does make up for the lesser AF performance of the Tamron.

How is its optical quality?

When I say it worked in reverse I mean the zoom control went in the opposite direction :?