Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD [Archive]

mcon17

12th of October 2010 (Tue), 14:29

My copy just came in and here are my initial thoughts:

-VC works really really well
-Bokeh is pleasing
-AF is faster than i figured it would be, and accurate
-Build quality is better than expected, expecially for a $400 lens

Pictures are SOOC

http://mconnor.smugmug.com/photos/1045446655_UXnVA-L.jpg

http://mconnor.smugmug.com/photos/1045448890_A7YYE-L.jpg

http://mconnor.smugmug.com/photos/1045456840_aQf9Y-L.jpg

http://mconnor.smugmug.com/photos/1045462238_enbEW-L.jpg

http://www.connorfoto.com/photos/1045482944_ZEMJA-L.jpg

MTAtech

12th of October 2010 (Tue), 18:56

Mine is arriving tomorrow. Then I need to decide whether to sell my 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS).

Dubz1

12th of October 2010 (Tue), 19:12

Mine is arriving tomorrow. Then I need to decide whether to sell my 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS).

Please post here if you do. I'm interested in both.

RacingMoose

12th of October 2010 (Tue), 19:33

mcon17...thanks for posting some pics. And I like your caddy!

bmwcolin

12th of October 2010 (Tue), 20:03

Just got my Tamron! I have only taken a few shots around work, but so far I really love this lens, wayyyy better then the 55-250is I had, and I like it alot better then my Bigma for size, VC and sharpness. Here are some quick shots.

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/bmwcolin/IMG_2649.jpg

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/bmwcolin/IMG_2617sm.jpg

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/bmwcolin/IMG_2665.jpg

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/bmwcolin/IMG_2620sm.jpg

RacingMoose

12th of October 2010 (Tue), 20:10

Just got my Tamron! I have only taken a few shots around work, but so far I really love this lens, wayyyy better then the 55-250is I had, and I like it alot better then my Bigma for size, VC and sharpness. Here are some quick shots.

What do you find better on the Tamron vs. the 55-250IS, beside the obvious longer length? I've been thinking of buying something like the 55-250IS as a lightweight cheap walk around or vacation lens instead of lugging around my 70-200 or 100-400 that I'm getting soon.

MMURAD

12th of October 2010 (Tue), 22:04

What do you find better on the Tamron vs. the 55-250IS, beside the obvious longer length? I've been thinking of buying something like the 55-250IS as a lightweight cheap walk around or vacation lens instead of lugging around my 70-200 or 100-400 that I'm getting soon.

I used to have the 55-250is and just got the Tamron. The vc on the tamron is much better than the IS on the canon. Image quality is better as well in my opinion. Construction is much more sturdy than the canon. As far as size the tamron is bigger and heavier than the 55-250 for sure but shorter than the 70-200, maybe same weight as the f/4 is but much less than the 2.8.

bmwcolin

12th of October 2010 (Tue), 22:48

I used to have the 55-250is and just got the Tamron. The vc on the tamron is much better than the IS on the canon. Image quality is better as well in my opinion. Construction is much more sturdy than the canon. As far as size the tamron is bigger and heavier than the 55-250 for sure but shorter than the 70-200, maybe same weight as the f/4 is but much less than the 2.8.

Yep I agree with all of that :) I find the weight and size very nice with my 60d, it just feels like I "biggie sized" my older T1i and 55-250 set up. LOL

MMURAD

12th of October 2010 (Tue), 23:11

this was in the store where I bought it.

hand held, 300mm, f/5.6, 1/15 shutter, iso 500.
I don't know if I got lucky or what....but 300mm and 1/15 shutter is just nuts
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/5077284720_6d3e132594_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5077284720/)
tamron 70-300 vc (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5077284720/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

bmwcolin

13th of October 2010 (Wed), 00:02

One more picture before bed. http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/bmwcolin/IMG_2678ps.jpg

MMURAD

13th of October 2010 (Wed), 19:38

some new shots from the backyard. I hope to get out this weekend and really test the lens out.

1
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/5079915728_1e639e84e2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5079915728/)
IMG_1294 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5079915728/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

2
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/5079915728_1e639e84e2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5079915728/)
IMG_1294 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5079915728/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

3
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4066/5079912384_42cbb0c39e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5079912384/)
IMG_1317 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5079912384/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

4
50% crop
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4044/5079317279_6a081e9fa5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5079317279/)
IMG_1313 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5079317279/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

5
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4089/5079315193_aaa04e058a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5079315193/)
IMG_1322 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5079315193/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

6
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/5079907588_34590005a7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5079907588/)
IMG_1325 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5079907588/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

bmwcolin

13th of October 2010 (Wed), 19:42

A few more pix I took today. I'm really liking this lens.

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/bmwcolin/IMG_2731sm.jpg

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/bmwcolin/IMG_2741sm.jpg

rodleviton

14th of October 2010 (Thu), 16:16

Subscribed! I'm thinking about getting this lens so more pics would be great! ;)

Immaculens

14th of October 2010 (Thu), 20:17

If this lens had weather sealing - I'd get it - but I think I'll have to spend 3x as much and get the 70-300 L... next yr... :confused:

Nevertheless.... "Subscribed" to this thread ;) :cool:

aznative

15th of October 2010 (Fri), 20:14

Snapped this one tonight:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4084/5084732805_15137c497c_b.jpg

Immaculens

15th of October 2010 (Fri), 20:27

Excellent! I was not able to get really any detail in the one I snapped tonight, but a coincidence we both shot a similar theme... [sorry - with the 70-300 IS]

shane33

15th of October 2010 (Fri), 22:33

Immaculens

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 03:06

gday guys i own the 18-270vc version and looking at this new lens. now my question is do you think its a big upgrade to what i have. the 70-300vc looks tempting im happy with the 270 but liking the look of this new one any thoughts?

The 18-270mm was unique that it covered such a focal range and it has pretty good optics through that range but in every zoom - including Canon L glass, there will always be quality compromises "somewhere along the zoom" - and the longer the zoom - the more compromises. If you have L glass - its less issues.

18-270mm = 252mm
70-300mm = 230mm

In your case - perhaps keep an eye out for if this 70-300mm has better IQ at 300mm vs your 270mm's IQ.

So I myself look forward to seeing pro reviews on this Tamron 70-300mm. If it proves more crisp at 300mm vs my Canon - I'll perhaps get it. I say perhaps because the new Canon 70-300 L came out a few months ago and it is surely sharper and it is weather sealed which is the other thing I really want, but perhaps don't need.

Tamron 70-300 = maybe $400ish
Canon 70-300 IS = $600ish
Canon 70-300 L = $1500ish

bmwcolin

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 10:12

Here are my first bird shots with the Tamron 70-300vc, I have never shot birds before, but this could be fun. http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/bmwcolin/IMG_2831.jpg

one more bird shot, I like the way he was holding on to both branches. LOL
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/bmwcolin/IMG_2814.jpg

MTAtech

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 15:56

Here are some head-to-head comparisons between the new Tamron 70-300mm VC and the Canon 70-200 f4 L (non-is). I've posted high resolution images on my own site because I wasn't satisfied with the resolution on photobucket. I took the images and made a composite in Photoshop so they can be viewed side-by-side.

My pre-judgment was that there wouldn't be anything noticeably different. I was wrong. The differences are quite noticeable. On every image the "L" looked better. Now, could this be due to the Tamron needing a micro adjustment? Maybe, but the darn 60D doesn't have micro adjustment!

Using a Canon 60D with a tripod, here they are:
1) 70mm at f4
http://sunreaper.com/TAMRON_TEST/70MM_F4.JPG

2) 70mm at f8
http://sunreaper.com/TAMRON_TEST/70MM_F8.JPG

3) 2) 135mm at f4
http://sunreaper.com/TAMRON_TEST/135MM_F4.JPG

4) 2) 135mm at f8
http://sunreaper.com/TAMRON_TEST/135MM_F8.JPG

5) 200mm at f4
http://sunreaper.com/TAMRON_TEST/200MM_F4.JPG

6) 200mm at f8
http://sunreaper.com/TAMRON_TEST/200MM_F8.JPG

The "L" lens noticeably outperforms the 70-300mm. If one looks at the metal bars on the left, one can see them clearly sharper on the "L" lens and less so than on the 70-300mm. The spider web thread is also much more defined on the "L" lens.

MMURAD

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 16:27

ya but how sharp was the "L" at 300mm and hand held. :)

just messing with you....I certainly do not expect this $400 lens to be as sharp as arguably one of the sharpest L zooms, but the difference sure is not that huge to me (nothing a little PP could not fix)... plus the VC on this thing is phenomenal.

MTAtech

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 16:40

I certainly do not expect this $400 lens to be as sharp as arguably one of the sharpest L zooms, but the difference sure is not that huge to me (nothing a little PP could not fix)... plus the VC on this thing is phenomenal.I wasn't implying that the Tamron wasn't good. It was. I was secretly hoping it was as good as the "L."

And yes, the Tamron has VC, which I wasn't testing. BTW, I wouldn't PP on the lens. It's not weather sealed. :-) (Just messing with you.)

MMURAD

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 17:06

I wasn't implying that the Tamron wasn't good. It was. I was secretly hoping it was as good as the "L."

And yes, the Tamron has VC, which I wasn't testing. BTW, I wouldn't PP on the lens. It's not weather sealed. :-) (Just messing with you.)
haha funny!

I was hoping the same....but it is not as sharp as the L but I can live with that.

is it just me or is the shot with the Canon at 70mm F/4 focused on the back side of the rusted metal bracket thing. The rest look focused on at the front bend of the bracket. I think the canon could be even sharper at the f/4 if it was focused on the same spot.

gcogger

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 17:08

MTAtech

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 17:18

gcogger

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 18:16

It was supposed to be focused on the same spot. I had it on the tripod and was careful not to move it when swapping lens. Could I have moved it a little? Maybe, but I didn't think so. EDIT: What I should have done is put a pen dot on the focus point and aimed at that each time.

But even so, it looks like the L has more detail in general. Like, look at the wood top on the 200mm F8. The grain is far more prominent. Even my 10 yr old (who just got interested in photography) noticed it.

I think that's simply out of focus on the Tamron shot. Look at the piece of rusty metal at the top of the 200mm f/5 shots - the Tamron is much better there, and sharper than it is at any point in the f/8 shot! The problem, perhaps, is that the camera is free to focus on anything in a quite large area even if the centre 'point' is chosen. The area for AF is almost 3 times larger than the focus square you see in the viewfinder, and the camera is free to focus on anything in that area. That's why I suggested using live view manual focus, in order to eliminate that variable.

MTAtech

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 18:47

I think that's simply out of focus on the Tamron shot. Look at the piece of rusty metal at the top of the 200mm f/5 shots - the Tamron is much better there, and sharper than it is at any point in the f/8 shot! The problem, perhaps, is that the camera is free to focus on anything in a quite large area even if the centre 'point' is chosen. The area for AF is almost 3 times larger than the focus square you see in the viewfinder, and the camera is free to focus on anything in that area. That's why I suggested using live view manual focus, in order to eliminate that variable.You're probably right about that. Let me understand live view. Live View is when one composes pictures right on the camera's rear LCD screen? My eyes are no longer perfect. I hope I can trust manual focus. Wouldn't using a different AF mode work, such as Spot AF mode?

MMURAD

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 19:02

you can go live view, then zoom in on the screen to get very accurate focus exactly where you want it.

bmwcolin

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 19:02

You're probably right about that. Let me understand live view. Live View is when one composes pictures right on the camera's rear LCD screen? My eyes are no longer perfect. I hope I can trust manual focus. Wouldn't using a different AF mode work, such as Spot AF mode?

Well I'm sure he was using spot focus, but when you use manual focus using live view, you can zoom in 10x and tweak the focus better.

MTAtech

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 19:23

you can go live view, then zoom in on the screen to get very accurate focus exactly where you want it.
Well I'm sure he was using spot focus, but when you use manual focus using live view, you can zoom in 10x and tweak the focus better.Thanks for the info! I'm still getting used to this camera. I have it less than two weeks.

gcogger

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 19:59

Yes, as stated above I was talking about the zoom-in option for live view - it's amazing how precisely you can focus that way.

I'm not trying to knock your testing, by the way, as these are exactly the comparisons that I'm interested in. I've tried tests like this myself, and it's really tough to get conclusive results. The lighting and the focus have to be identical between shots (unless you're testing AF, of course) and it needs very good tripod technique. It usually takes me several attempts :)

leonclement

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 21:01

cant wait for this lens to be available in New Zealand for canon mount! Just sold my 55-250mm IS to get this soon. :)

tkbslc

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 22:40

you can go live view, then zoom in on the screen to get very accurate focus exactly where you want it.

If you have to do that to get a sharp photo then who wants the lens anyway? This was a good test. If the difference is down to autofocus, then that is going to show in real life as well.

MMURAD

16th of October 2010 (Sat), 23:35

If you have to do that to get a sharp photo then who wants the lens anyway? This was a good test. If the difference is down to autofocus, then that is going to show in real life as well.

This was a good test and for normal usage the live view and zoom technique is not practical. (except for maybe macro work)
But the live view manual focus is to account for any micro adjustment the lens might need and to make sure you are on the spot you want for testing purposes.
I use it to micro adjust all my lenses on the 7D.

gcogger

17th of October 2010 (Sun), 05:17

If you have to do that to get a sharp photo then who wants the lens anyway? This was a good test. If the difference is down to autofocus, then that is going to show in real life as well.

I think it's important to do separate tests for image quality and focusing ability. I'm not sure this is a good test for AF, as the centre of the frame is closely surrounded by things at different distances from the camera. You really need something unambiguous to focus on for an AF test.

bmwcolin

18th of October 2010 (Mon), 10:27

My keeper rate has gone way up with the lens and the 60d, over my 55-250is and T1i...

More sample shots taken yesterday.

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/bmwcolin/IMG_0091sm.jpg]

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/bmwcolin/IMG_0186.jpg

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/bmwcolin/IMG_0127sm.jpg

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/bmwcolin/IMG_0080sm.jpg

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/bmwcolin/IMG_0085bw.jpg

Dubz1

18th of October 2010 (Mon), 13:38

wow...They look great!
How do you think it will do shooting sports? Daytime..Good light?
Keep em coming.

bmwcolin

18th of October 2010 (Mon), 13:41

wow...They look great!
How do you think it will do shooting sports? Daytime..Good light?
Keep em coming.

I think it should be fine, depending on what body its on. 7d im sure would be great. rebel, a little slower. The AF is pretty fast, and the pix are pretty sharp. I'm happy with it.

TheNewGuy01

18th of October 2010 (Mon), 21:52

Never really posted before please bare with me.

My wife just bought me this lens for our anniversary :)

The first thing I noticed is the VC is great! The lens is pretty sharp too; however I have not been able to fully test it out. Here are a few shots, jpg, strait out of my camera. (Wish I shot in raw more). All are hand held and the light was disappearing. They are not as sharp as they could be but 1/30-1/80s hand held at 300mm

f5.6, 1/30, 300mm, ISO1600
http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/a453/wturano/IMG_8627.jpg

f5.6, 1/50, 300mm, ISO1600
http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/a453/wturano/IMG_8634.jpg

f5.6, 1/50, 300mm, ISO800
http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/a453/wturano/IMG_8616.jpg

f7.1, 1/80s, 300mm, ISO800
http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/a453/wturano/IMG_8591.jpg

misty66

19th of October 2010 (Tue), 15:51

@bmwcolin, those "cat" pix are great......beautiful animal and great photos well done....show more!

bmwcolin

19th of October 2010 (Tue), 17:30

Here is a very informal example and comparison of my old t1i and 55-250is I gave to my wife and my new 60d and 70-300 vc.

Her shot
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/2232/img0328pssm.jpg (http://img651.imageshack.us/i/img0328pssm.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Mine with the 70-300vc
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7905/img0085bw.jpg (http://img146.imageshack.us/i/img0085bw.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

shane_c

20th of October 2010 (Wed), 10:13

Looks like it's a great lens for the price! I'm seriously considering picking one up in the next few months. Have there been any tests comparing the Tamron 70-300 VC and the Canon 55-250?

leoni

21st of October 2010 (Thu), 08:17

some persons said that tamron is better then canon 55-250is

what about sigma 70-300 OS

how is AF with tamron 70-300?

thanks

MTAtech

21st of October 2010 (Thu), 08:27

some persons said that tamron is better then canon 55-250is

what about sigma 70-300 OS

how is AF with tamron 70-300?

thanksI don't think people tested it against every permutation of competing lenses.
The AF is fast. It's not quite as fast as the 70-200L but someone said it was faster than the 70-300 (non-L.) I have no complaints with the AF or the VC.

aznative

23rd of October 2010 (Sat), 01:36

Full moon photo taken tonight. f/8, 1/640th, ISO 100, at 300mm on a t2i. Processed and sharpened in ACR.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1085/5106907348_8bef31ed69_b.jpg

RacingMoose

23rd of October 2010 (Sat), 10:16

aznativie....beautiful shot. This lens is sure looking to be a winner.

leonclement

23rd of October 2010 (Sat), 17:28

aznativie, good detailed shot! any chance you can post a pic of this lens mounted on your t2i? i will be getting this lens soon for my 550d, want to see how it looks.

MMURAD

24th of October 2010 (Sun), 00:28

I few shots from down at the beach today. I had the Sigma 150-500 on the camera most of the time, but wanted to try this lens out as well.

1.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1238/5109156569_f2352f2700_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109156569/)
IMG_3827 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109156569/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

2.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1055/5109748552_78c8a5ac03_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109748552/)
IMG_3833 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109748552/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

3.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1332/5109150143_9ea2284c62_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109150143/)
IMG_3834 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109150143/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

4.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1311/5109753754_14ecf50763_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109753754/)
IMG_3820 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109753754/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

5.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1213/5109157829_69d6cb5b74_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109157829/)
IMG_3842 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109157829/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

6.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1197/5109746780_8e4ccca036_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109746780/)
IMG_3807 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109746780/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

7.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1170/5109149617_e26f9c3681_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109149617/)
IMG_3839 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109149617/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

8.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1069/5109152657_00f522af8f_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109152657/)
IMG_3849 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109152657/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

bmwcolin

24th of October 2010 (Sun), 00:47

Mike, good looking surf shots.

MMURAD

24th of October 2010 (Sun), 01:05

Thanks, I am having fun learning.
I am pretty impressed with this lens. I couple of those shots are cropped in close to 50% and still pretty sharp.

diegoBE

24th of October 2010 (Sun), 12:53

MMurad, could you compare this lens with your 150-500? Some shots at 200 and 300 mm with two lens in same conditions?

(sorry my english)

Thanks

MMURAD

24th of October 2010 (Sun), 13:42

MMurad, could you compare this lens with your 150-500? Some shots at 200 and 300 mm with two lens in same conditions?

(sorry my english)

Thanks

Honestly I think the 70-300 is sharper and the vc on the tamron seems "stronger" than the os on the Sigma.
Very different lenses and used for different things, but that is my impression. I may try and do some set up tests to compare when I get some time.

v_lestat

25th of October 2010 (Mon), 09:14

Full moon photo taken tonight. f/8, 1/640th, ISO 100, at 300mm on a t2i. Processed and sharpened in ACR.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1085/5106907348_8bef31ed69_b.jpg

if that is all that this lens has at 300mm then i am running away.
that looks like it was shot at a lower mm and then enlarged/resized - are you sure thats at 300mm ??
but it also looks like its not focused either.

That all sounds like i am barking at you, i am not, i am just commenting on that shot compared to what you see below, even with a lesser lens.

these were shot in jpeg
here is a couple of shots with my T2i and a canon 70-300 F/4-5.6 USM IS and the 2nd is an old crappy Sigma 100-300 f/4-5.6
these were shot just this past week.

yes the light on the 1st shot is blown out faster shutter speed resulted in those being less but the rest of the moon too dark. it was just the way the light was reflecting off the moon making the shot wierd to get.

Handheld, no tripod, Canon 70-300 USM IS - ISO-200--F/8--1/400th
http://broveakphotography.zapto.org/photo/convert.php?type=2&dir=73747566662f4d6f6f6e&name=494d475f393837372e6a7067

tripod this time - Crappy old Sigma 100-300MM F/4-5.6 - ISO100--F/8--1/200th
http://broveakphotography.zapto.org/photo/convert.php?type=2&dir=73747566662f4d6f6f6e&name=494d475f303131382e6a7067

Rickg357

27th of October 2010 (Wed), 02:12

http://i1113.photobucket.com/albums/k507/rickg357/CanonTamron2.jpg

I borrowed a friends Canon 70-200 f 4 L USM non IS lens. Not sure if anyone is interested, but I did some comparison shots using a chart. The chart was placed on my fence during the afternoon for lighting. The focal point was the center of the chart.
Chart (http://i1113.photobucket.com/albums/k507/rickg357/Untitled-3.jpg)

Full Chart
Tamron 70-300mm f7.1 200mm (http://i1113.photobucket.com/albums/k507/rickg357/IMG_9692.jpg)

Photo of tree focal point same leaves.
Tamron (http://i1113.photobucket.com/albums/k507/rickg357/IMG_9716.jpg)
Canon (http://i1113.photobucket.com/albums/k507/rickg357/IMG_9713.jpg)

Rickg357

27th of October 2010 (Wed), 02:21

Sorry after posting I looked at the photos place on photobucket and they were resized. Any idea where I can place them?

bmwcolin

27th of October 2010 (Wed), 11:06

Sorry after posting I looked at the photos place on photobucket and they were resized. Any idea where I can place them?

Image shack

MISHI

27th of October 2010 (Wed), 14:18

I know it may be too early but the question that burns...

How does it compare to the canon 70-300 USM?

aznative

27th of October 2010 (Wed), 17:55

No worries...the criticism is good to have. It was at 300mm and I just cropped it. I think the big difference is with a completely full moon there's absolutely no depth to the picture. The craters don't get any shadows and it just looks flat blah.

The moon should be about 3/4th full tonight so I'll try grabbing a few more shots.

Here's one I got earlier this month...a lucky shot :D

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4084/5084732805_15137c497c_b.jpg

if that is all that this lens has at 300mm then i am running away.
that looks like it was shot at a lower mm and then enlarged/resized - are you sure thats at 300mm ??
but it also looks like its not focused either.

That all sounds like i am barking at you, i am not, i am just commenting on that shot compared to what you see below, even with a lesser lens.

Rickg357

27th of October 2010 (Wed), 23:39

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/7993/35520384.jpg

For the money this is a great lens. It’s a little soft wide open. But as you close the aperture it really starts to sharpen. All shots were originally Raw .CR2 converted to jpg using photoshop Quality 11. Camera used Canon T2i on tripod. I shot each one wide open from f4 and each stop to f8.

Full image
Canon 70-200 f4 L non IS vs Tamron SP 70-300 f4-5.6 VC USM Crops(1Mb)
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9816/canonvstamroncrop.jpg

Canon Full Chart f8 200mm 1/500sec iso100(4Mb)
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/3513/canon70200chart.jpg

Tamron Full Chart f8 200mm 1/500sec iso100(4Mb)
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/774/tamronsp70300chart.jpg

Canon Tamron Tree Crop f8 200mm 1/250sec iso100(1Mb)
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/4729/treecrop.jpg

Canon Full Tree f8 200mm 1/250sec iso100(4Mb)
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1203/img9713canon.jpg

Tamron Full Tree f8 209mm 1/250sec iso100 (4Mb)
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/6183/img9716tamron.jpg

woos

27th of October 2010 (Wed), 23:51

The tree image is very impressive--the corner (top left) is amazingly sharp. It's pretty much the equal of the L in that pic, though I know the IS 70-200 is sharper, but wow, for the price this lens seems incredible... i want one to replace my 55-250!

Edit: and on the moon shot, I dunno...it's impossible to tell much about a lens at all from pics of the moon, as far as sharpness, etc, goes.

I'm 100% convinced that the biggest factor in moon shots isn't the quality of the lens, but atmospheric conditions..shrug.

MMURAD

28th of October 2010 (Thu), 00:20

a few pictures from a walk around the neighborhood today.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1056/5121683227_47207ca646_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5121683227/)
IMG_6099 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5121683227/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1067/5121680837_ef1b22bbea_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5121680837/)
IMG_6097 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5121680837/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1366/5122279258_f4b266b0c8_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5122279258/)
IMG_6056 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5122279258/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/5121678197_716268348e_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5121678197/)
IMG_6092 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5121678197/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

Dubz1

28th of October 2010 (Thu), 10:29

Sports shots...Anyone taken any sports shots?

leftwinger

29th of October 2010 (Fri), 22:06

MTAtech

1st of November 2010 (Mon), 13:59

Ordered mine from Crutchfield on Oct. 11 and already got the $100 rebate on Oct. 30th.

MMURAD

1st of November 2010 (Mon), 20:41

I was out on the pier today trying to take pictures of the surfers and this guy kept buzzing me. So I shot him.

this is uncropped and with very minimal pp.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4050/5137733491_2808af7b50_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5137733491/)
IMG_0613 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5137733491/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

v_lestat

2nd of November 2010 (Tue), 10:10

http://i1113.photobucket.com/albums/k507/rickg357/Untitled-3.jpg

For the money this is a great lens. It’s a little soft wide open. But as you close the aperture it really starts to sharpen. All shots were originally Raw .CR2 converted to jpg using photoshop Quality 11. Camera used Canon T2i on tripod. I shot each one wide open from f4 and each stop to f8.

thank you for the chart pictures.
your results are identical to what i found when i tested this last last saturday at a local camera store.
i thought the shots were soft and milky/low contrast, but when setting the cameras Exposure compensation to -1/3 to -2/3 it cleared up.
it was almost like the lens was causing the caemra to incorrectly meter the shot, thus making the images slightly overexposed giving it that hazy look from over exposure, but thats not it.
i felt the shutter speeds were accurate given my metering mode.

realistically this is very bad in my eyes. the lens is F/4 but many shots become unacceptable at F/4 because of its softness and milky contrasty look.
it IS only $450, so i cut it some slack, but why make a lens that is this poopy at its native aperture.

thank you again for posting those pictures, i was really starting to think it was me and my camera (even though i knew better)

on a side note i had the exact same issue with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC, it was soft and milky/contrasty until i stopped the camera down or lowered the F-Stop.

Immaculens

2nd of November 2010 (Tue), 15:52

what are folks squeezing the aperture to for 300mm "sharpest-ness"?

I put my Canon at f/9 so if the Tami needs f/8 or f9 then there is no point for me to change to this model

thank-you ~

Rickg357

2nd of November 2010 (Tue), 16:56

If you like I can post other f stops. when I did the testing I did each lens wide open at the following focal lengths Tamron 70, 141, 200, and 300mm f4, f4.5, f5, f5.6, f6.3, f7.1, and f8. Remember this was a comparison of the Canon 70-200mm L f4. to me I don't think this is a fair comparison. I don't think tamron was trying to compete with the 70-200mm. they were competing with the 70-300mm. I just wanted something that came close and to me it has. in some of the higher f stops the Tamron is slightly sharper or close to being the same. I'm impressed for the money.

Rickg357

2nd of November 2010 (Tue), 17:03

I would like to see some side by side comparisons between the Tamron and the Canon 70-300mm USM IS. has anyone seen any comparisons?

v_lestat

2nd of November 2010 (Tue), 21:23

I would like to see some side by side comparisons between the Tamron and the Canon 70-300mm USM IS. has anyone seen any comparisons?

i think that would be nice since they were aiming for the 70-300 not the 70-200L

i have shot several times with the 70-300 IS USM and posted a moon shot a few pages back.
i also took some shots outside the camera store this last weekend, traffic, signs, building, and was pretty disappointed with what i saw, until i dropped the exposure to -1/3~2/3 then it cleaned up.
i flipped thru a few fstops and it cleared up also but in the end i really felt that if i buy an F/4 lens why on earth should i have to stop my camera down or the lens down to make the images usable. because, and this is maybe just me, at F/4,,, regardless of zoom range, the shots were unacceptable.
I am not a well to do person financially and when i get a lens she better perform and, again i KNOW this is just my thoughts, i wont buy this lens. i will stick with the Canon 70-300 if i do go for a lens in this range. or the 70-200L and my tripod.

not only that but the VC on this lens is nasty... it doesnt float, it jerks when you move and shake where the Canon is smooth and floats with you (i actually get a little motion sick when i first start using the canon because of the way it tricks your eyes)
you move, and the tamron lens has a delay and then it jerks to compensate.
i am not referring to the initial jerk with the VC kicks in, i mean when you move and you have the VC active (shutter pressed 1/2 way down)

i doubt i would ever loose a shot but where i felt i could move around with the canon and keep the IS going, the tamron wasnt able to do it.

Rickg357

3rd of November 2010 (Wed), 02:13

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5639/70mmtamcan.jpg

I will work on the 200mm crop comparison next, then Canon 135 Tamron 141 and last 300mm crop Tamron only. At 70mm they are very close.

Full image
Canon 70-200 f4 L non IS vs Tamron SP 70-300 f4-5.6 VC USM Crops(1Mb)
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9816/canonvstamroncrop.jpg

Canon Full Chart f8 200mm 1/500sec iso100(4Mb)
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/3513/canon70200chart.jpg

Tamron Full Chart f8 200mm 1/500sec iso100(4Mb)
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/774/tamronsp70300chart.jpg

Canon Tamron Tree Crop f8 200mm 1/250sec iso100(1Mb)
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/4729/treecrop.jpg

Canon Full Tree f8 200mm 1/250sec iso100(4Mb)
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1203/img9713canon.jpg

Tamron Full Tree f8 209mm 1/250sec iso100 (4Mb)
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/6183/img9716tamron.jpg

Rickg357

3rd of November 2010 (Wed), 03:16

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/6369/135mmtamcan.jpg
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/9927/200mmtamcan.jpg

here is Canon 135 and Tamron 141, and 200mm Crop chart. I'll try to post the 300mm tomorrow.

jacobsen1

3rd of November 2010 (Wed), 08:55

I ordered one from One Call which is on backorder to use when I do not want to lug my EF 100-400 around. Will be interesting to see how much I use the Tamron vs the EF 100-400. Guess we will see at some point.

I'm considering the same... Saw it at photo expo, but it's hard to part with a good 100-400...

rodleviton

3rd of November 2010 (Wed), 09:16

HyperYagami

3rd of November 2010 (Wed), 12:04

Ugh, too many people are focusing on the "technical abilities, sharpness, bla bla bla of this lens" INSTEAD of going out and taking "Real World" pictures...not that we don't appreciate it :) BUT come on people, go out and take some pictures and post them here for others to see :)

honestly all real world pics look quite good enough to me, and canon's older one wasn't really that sharp to start with. i still think this one has potential.

Rickg357

5th of November 2010 (Fri), 01:30

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/7663/300mmtamron.jpg

Last post of the chart crop at 300mm

gcogger

5th of November 2010 (Fri), 11:39

Mine has just arrived. Unfortunately, it's starting to get dark and it's the dullest of dull days outside, so I'll have to wait until tomorrow for a proper test. I poked the lens out the window and tried a few snaps, however, and I'd like to show a centre 100% crop. This was at 300mm f/5.6 and 1/80 sec at ISO 800 on my 40D. Shot in RAW, processed in DPP with Standard picture style, Sharpness = 3 and contrast/saturation at 0 (equivalent to what many people would call 'straight out of camera'). I had to bump the exposure up a little (didn't have time to re-shoot!).

http://www.coggerjones.co.uk/stuff/tamron_test1.jpg

Nothing conclusive, but there's no real chromatic aberration in the crop (or elsewhere in the shot). I've shot that chimney for lens tests on many occasions, in many kinds of light, with many top quality lenses and my feeling at the moment is that we're in very good territory. There may be some nicer weather tomorrow, so I'll try and do some comparisons with the Canon 300mm f/4 L and the 70-200 f/4 IS with teleconverter.

Ugh, too many people are focusing on the "technical abilities, sharpness, bla bla bla of this lens" INSTEAD of going out and taking "Real World" pictures...not that we don't appreciate it BUT come on people, go out and take some pictures and post them here for others to see

Sorry :( Maybe tomorrow!

joechaos

5th of November 2010 (Fri), 22:09

I got mine today and I'm totally excited about my purchase. I snapped a few pictures and the results were much better than my 55-250mm (sharp at 300mm). The only downside is the weight. This lens is a little heavy for travel, so I plan to keep my 55-250mm as well for when I want to travel light.

stargazer78

6th of November 2010 (Sat), 01:30

I borrowed a friends Canon 70-200 f 4 L USM non IS lens. Not sure if anyone is interested, but I did some comparison shots using a chart. The chart was placed on my fence during the afternoon for lighting. The focal point was the center of the chart.

Thank you for posting all these charts, they were very informative. It looks to me like the 70-300 VC is looking very decent at all focal lengths when stopped down, at least in terms of center sharpness. How does is fare in corner sharpness on your T2i?

Incidentally, you ought to tell your friend that he's got himself a bad 70-200L. The full-size sample you provided show that his lens is extremely soft on the left side at all apertures. I don't think it had any effect on your test, since you only posted center crops. But still, he should have a Canon service center take a look at his 70-200L.

gcogger

6th of November 2010 (Sat), 14:29

OK, as promised, I've uploaded a gallery of motorsports images taken with this lens this morning on a 40D. (Actually, the first 2 are with a 70-200 f/4 L IS with teleconverter).

Gallery link (http://www.coggerjones.co.uk/goodwood17/index.html)

A couple of favourites:

http://www.coggerjones.co.uk/goodwood17/content/images/large/_MG_1022.jpg

http://www.coggerjones.co.uk/goodwood17/content/images/large/_MG_1053.jpg

http://www.coggerjones.co.uk/goodwood17/content/images/large/_MG_1076.jpg

I'll post my first impressions on the 'lenses' forum soon...

gcogger

6th of November 2010 (Sat), 14:45

Here are a couple to demonstrate bokeh (the photos are nothing special). Both are at 300mm f/5.6 - the first with a reasonable distance between subject and background, and the second with the subject at short range and close to the background.

http://www.coggerjones.co.uk/stuff/tamron/bokeh_1.jpg

http://www.coggerjones.co.uk/stuff/tamron/bokeh_2.jpg

And finally, a link to a full resolution image to assess sharpness across the frame. This was simply processed in DPP with standard picture style, sharpness = 3, contrast/saturation at 0 and no noise reduction.

http://www.coggerjones.co.uk/stuff/tamron/sample.jpg

Rickg357

6th of November 2010 (Sat), 15:17

Thank you for posting all these charts, they were very informative. It looks to me like the 70-300 VC is looking very decent at all focal lengths when stopped down, at least in terms of center sharpness. How does is fare in corner sharpness on your T2i?

Incidentally, you ought to tell your friend that he's got himself a bad 70-200L. The full-size sample you provided show that his lens is extremely soft on the left side at all apertures. I don't think it had any effect on your test, since you only posted center crops. But still, he should have a Canon service center take a look at his 70-200L.

Your right I recognized it once but shrugged it off. I was thinking since it was on the fence it could have been skewed a little. I looked through all the charts and even ones I did inside with a 60watt light, chart placed on the wall looked the same. Here is a chart of all the outer corners seams to hold up well under all ranges and f-stops. Bottom seems to be a little soft, but it could be skewed a little from the fence. I was mainly focusing on the center.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/3298/tamron200mmcorners.jpg

MMURAD

7th of November 2010 (Sun), 21:35

sunset tonight

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1364/5157036324_d498dd9e8c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5157036324/)
IMG_0228sm (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5157036324/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

JoeDante

9th of November 2010 (Tue), 13:19

Buying this lens was a very good choice! :)
I tried to make pictures near the impossible. See the pictures I attached. I haven't thought to get that out of this lens. Great!

JoeDante

9th of November 2010 (Tue), 13:20

BTW: all are freehand shots! ;)

ohnoes

13th of November 2010 (Sat), 22:20

This isn't a bad lens. Some of the info I read about it beforehand raised my expectations a bit though. I don't know if there's an affordable telephoto lens (as in, <$500) that can perform as well as this.

300mm @ f/5.6
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1158/5106856844_b87ebe55ec_b.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1430/5106856952_0230ed3e2f_b.jpg

228mm @ f/5.6
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/5157734764_e8ba32583f_b.jpg

209mm @f/5.6. Tested the CA here, and it wasn't very noticeable at this focal length.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4090/5106856766_b473e93dbb_b.jpg

LightRules

14th of November 2010 (Sun), 16:09

A few quick snaps around the home. All 300mm wide open f5.6...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5173278500_a1c23a03d2_z.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4106/5173278418_4ac88d0ffb_z.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4087/5173278464_5fa4388e2f_z.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/5172675087_8728f7dcfc_z.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/5173278352_51fdcbef81_z.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/5173278254_a8cd7d0490_z.jpg

MackDaddy1962

15th of November 2010 (Mon), 10:39

Just got mine last Wednesday from B&H. So far, I love it. A few random shots around the house:

http://images9.fotki.com/v251/photos/2/17642/9237596/IMG_1735-vi.jpg

http://images116.fotki.com/v694/photos/2/17642/9237596/IMG_1759-vi.jpg

http://images58.fotki.com/v696/photos/2/17642/9237596/IMG_1773-vi.jpg

http://images9.fotki.com/v1618/photos/2/17642/9237596/IMG_1780-vi.jpg

leftwinger

16th of November 2010 (Tue), 11:52

First Time Use of Tamron 70-300 VC and first time photographing a X-Country meet.
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g276/leftwinger_2006/DPP_0030.jpg

Rickg357

21st of November 2010 (Sun), 16:09

Here are a couple images of a seagull in San Francisco, no image enhancements at 70mm, 130mm, and 300mm. The last photo I uploaded the original, the others were too large for imageshack.

70mm f4.0 ISO 200 1/4000
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/1858/img0387resize.jpg
130mm f4.5 ISO 200 1/3200sec
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/8052/img0388resize.jpg
300mm f5.6 ISO 200 1/2000sec
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/1438/img0390resize.jpg

Here is the Full Image Original download 4MB Below:

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/571/img0390uw.jpg

kevinmat

24th of November 2010 (Wed), 18:01

Lens arrived today - so quick shot from today at 300mm f/8.0

MackDaddy1962

24th of November 2010 (Wed), 18:06

Nice KevinMat!

kevinmat

24th of November 2010 (Wed), 20:50

..... and one more

Immaculens

24th of November 2010 (Wed), 21:41

..... and one more

Nice ~

Curious - did you use f/8 because its sharper at f/8 or is there another reason?

kevinmat

24th of November 2010 (Wed), 22:24

I was using f5.6 and f8 to see the difference between them, in all honesty I couldn't see much if any difference in sharpness between the two in the shots I took. I'll do some more testing over the weekend but I'm pretty happy with it right now. I'm going to compare it with a 70-200mm 2.8 II and see how it fares. I'm sure the 70-200mm will be better - just interested to see by how much.

kaunis hetki photography

25th of November 2010 (Thu), 09:02

TheNewGuy01

25th of November 2010 (Thu), 11:18

I'm SO interested in this lens but SO torn between this one and the Canon 70-200mm F/4 USM (non IS)...there just arent' enough great images from this lens yet to convince me. I am more concerned with sharpness and creamy bokeh than I am about the shooting in low light (I have a 200mm F/2.8, a 100mm F/2.0 and a 50mm F/1.8 for those situations).
Someone knock me out with some killer bokeh in a sharp portrait

this is not my sharpest from this lens (light was not good and my lens filter was dirty, gotta check these things more often) but the bokeh is nice IMHO.

http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/a453/wturano/10__October2010_007.jpg

muskyhunter

25th of November 2010 (Thu), 15:26

seems this 70-300 lens is very promising.

wonder hwo it compares to the canon 70-300 models.

MackDaddy1962

25th of November 2010 (Thu), 18:20

IMHO, it beats the Canon 70-300/IS hands down (as I've had both.) This lens ROCKS.

MackDaddy1962

25th of November 2010 (Thu), 18:21

http://images17.fotki.com/v1622/photos/2/17642/9237596/IMG_1779-vi.jpg

http://images112.fotki.com/v495/photos/2/17642/9237596/IMG_1784-vi.jpg

kevinmat

25th of November 2010 (Thu), 20:33

First f/8 second F/5.6 - taken with 7D, great detail and smooth oof bg

Rickg357

26th of November 2010 (Fri), 01:48

Here are some photos I took last week with some relatives. Hand held VC and AF Canon T2i no image enhancements. Included link to full photo under each image.

70mm f/4 1/400sec ISO 100
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/4296/img0778m.jpg

Full Image Below 5MB:
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4955/img0778j.jpg

84mm f/4 1/200sec ISO 100
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3828/img081001.jpg

Full Image Below 5MB:
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/7531/img08100.jpg

161mm f/5 1/250sec ISO 100
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/7892/img08200.jpg

Full Image Below 5MB:
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/2536/img0820e0.jpg

muskyhunter

26th of November 2010 (Fri), 10:28

how does this lens compare to the canon and sigma models?

kevinmat

26th of November 2010 (Fri), 11:57

A few more from today .....

Flower 300mm @ f/7.1
Sand Crane 300mm @ f/5.6

kevinmat

26th of November 2010 (Fri), 11:58

Sand Cranes 300mm @ f/5.6

kevinmat

26th of November 2010 (Fri), 11:58

These are close to 100% crops

Sand Crane 300mm f/5.6

Immaculens

27th of November 2010 (Sat), 05:19

Intriguing! Has anyone found f/6.3 or f/7.1 or f/8 to be more sharp vs 5.6 - or can f/5.6 seem to hold its own?

Immaculens

27th of November 2010 (Sat), 06:07

IMHO, it beats the Canon 70-300/IS hands down (as I've had both.) This lens ROCKS.

I and likely others would be interested how the VC model is superior - because the EF 70-300 IS is certainly no slouch for IQ or build.

If I can get even equal IQ at 300mm but at f/5.6 or f/6.3 - I'd pull the trigger.

I can sell my EF and it would pay for most of the VC... :cool:

kaunis hetki photography

27th of November 2010 (Sat), 07:06

I am SO torn. I see conflicting reviews...I see people sending it back and I see people loving it. I might just step up, go all out and buy the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS (previous model used for around $1200) and be done with it.
There just isn't enough real life samples of professional portraits (which is what I'd like to use it for). Ugh! Maybe someone will read this and go take some new modeling/portrait shots.

Immaculens

27th of November 2010 (Sat), 08:04

For what reasons have people taken it back?

I am SO torn. I see conflicting reviews...I see people sending it back and I see people loving it.....
There just isn't enough real life samples of professional portraits (which is what I'd like to use it for). Ugh! Maybe someone will read this and go take some new modeling/portrait shots.

DarthVader

27th of November 2010 (Sat), 08:18

The cons I've known so far:

- QC: some batches overexposed some underexposed.
- Some CA open wide @ 300mm.

kaunis hetki photography

27th of November 2010 (Sat), 13:58

I've heard the same about both...could just be the exceptions.

SergeyR

27th of November 2010 (Sat), 17:31

MackDaddy1962

27th of November 2010 (Sat), 17:34

My Canon mount Tamron makes the same noise as yours. When VC engages / disengages it's noisy. Works like a charm none the less!

SergeyR

27th of November 2010 (Sat), 21:14

Then it's OK. I thought that something was wrong with my lens.

Rickg357

27th of November 2010 (Sat), 21:22

Hello!

I received my Nikon mount Tamron 70-300 VC this week. I noticed a unusual noise when trying to focus camera on any object with VC "ON". This noise happens when VC system enables VC mode and I hear it again when VC mode is disabled. I have never heard this sound using Nikon lenses with vibration reduction (compensation).

So I have a question: have anyone heard the same noise using this 70-300 VC lense?

I have the Canon 15-85 and had the 55-250. The Tamron VC in my opinion out performed both. The VC seems to just freeze the image.

Mine had the same problem with the noise as soon it engaged and after it disengaged. It sounded like a small squeal just as it started and when it stopped. After about two weeks of use the sound disappeared, haven’t heard it since. May have just needed to be broken in.

Rickg357

27th of November 2010 (Sat), 22:06

Intriguing! Has anyone found f/6.3 or f/7.1 or f/8 to be more sharp vs 5.6 - or can f/5.6 seem to hold its own?

With my lens it’s a little soft wide open. At about 2 f-stops higher mine really starts to sharpen up

See #77 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=941292&page=6
See #72 and 73 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=941292&page=5

Here were some images shot wide open. Look at the full images below each photo for comparison.
See #103 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=941292&page=7

MackDaddy1962

27th of November 2010 (Sat), 22:12

I have the Canon 15-85 and had the 55-250. The Tamron VC in my opinion out performed both. The VC seems to just freeze the image.

Mine had the same problem with the noise as soon it engaged and after it disengaged. It sounded like a small squeal just as it started and when it stopped. After about two weeks of use the sound disappeared, haven’t heard it since. May have just needed to be broken in.

I have the 15-85, and just sold my 55-250 Nifty Two Fifty. I'd have to say the Tammy certainly gives the 15-85 a run for it's money in IQ, color & contrast. You're right, the VC locks in with a vengeance like none of my other lenses. In the test shots I've done, it worked flawlessly.

Hopefully mine will "break in" as well (although not a problem as is.)

frule

29th of November 2010 (Mon), 05:56

The cons I've known so far:

- QC: some batches overexposed some underexposed.
- Some CA open wide @ 300mm.

I'll add that some copies are soft vs the older Canon 70-300mm IS. Some posters blame it on early copies. Others blame it on Chinese manufacturers (vs Japanese for the Nikon version).

Steve Beck

2nd of December 2010 (Thu), 20:48

BH has many good reviews on this lens. Wish we had a lot more samples....

tinga

2nd of December 2010 (Thu), 22:15

Newbie here and here are some pictures that I like. They are not that great since I just bought my 5D mk2 and couple lenses including this Tamron. I sold my 70-200 f4 non-IS to get more reach. I hope that I made a wise and good decision.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5241/5228240212_59e276fe0d_b_d.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5285/5227646481_00ca066eb9_b_d.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5287/5228243174_98eb5ee868_b_d.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5041/5228244402_0fb7899866_b_d.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5285/5228273410_1a4e87aaef_b_d.jpg

bigrig

3rd of December 2010 (Fri), 08:05

Anyone used the lens for sports? Is the focus fast enough?

gcogger

3rd of December 2010 (Fri), 10:16

Anyone used the lens for sports? Is the focus fast enough?

Yes, and (with a small proviso) yes - see my comments HERE. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=956342)

MMURAD

3rd of December 2010 (Fri), 20:46

Anyone used the lens for sports? Is the focus fast enough?

I have used it a little for some surf shots. Seemed to track fast enough. These shots are cropped pretty heavily.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1332/5109150143_9ea2284c62_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109150143/)
IMG_3834 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109150143/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1055/5109748552_78c8a5ac03_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109748552/)
IMG_3833 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109748552/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1238/5109156569_f2352f2700_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109156569/)
IMG_3827 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikemurad/5109156569/) by Mike Murad (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikemurad/), on Flickr

bigrig

3rd of December 2010 (Fri), 20:50

Cool, thanks guys.

sunbeast

7th of December 2010 (Tue), 19:24

300mm f/5.6 only processing was from RAW to jpeg downsized for web.

497142

497143

mikiort

13th of December 2010 (Mon), 03:26

Tamron SP AF70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD lens
Canon 500D
130mm, f/4.5

mikiort

14th of December 2010 (Tue), 07:47

Tamron SP AF70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD lens
Canon 500D
300mm, f/7.1

leftwinger

14th of December 2010 (Tue), 08:24

Great looking pics! Have not shot any bird pics yet with this lens and glad to see that it does a good job! :)

mikiort

15th of December 2010 (Wed), 15:13

Tamron SP AF70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD lens
Canon 500D
300mm, f/6.3

Rickg357

16th of December 2010 (Thu), 00:52

Overcast day at the Sacramento Zoo.
Photos taken this weekend. Hand held VC and AF Canon T2i no post image enhancements strait from the camera just shrunk. Included link to full photo under each image but shrank down due to 5MB limit. Images were originally 6 to 8MB. Also some images were taken through the fence.

Shutter 1/100 sec, F/8, ISO 1600, Focal 200mm
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/9232/img1612o.jpg

Shutter 1/160 sec, F/8, ISO 1600, Focal 200mm
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/1779/img1615pj.jpg

Link to full image:
http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/8522/img1615k.jpg

Rickg357

16th of December 2010 (Thu), 00:58

Overcast day at the Sacramento Zoo.

Shutter 1/400 sec, F/5.6, ISO 500, Focal 300mm
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4530/img1964qz.jpg

Link to full image:
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5396/img1964l.jpg

Shutter 1/320 sec, F/5, ISO 320, Focal 183 mm
http://img602.imageshack.us/img602/6084/img1985.jpg

Link to full image:
http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/2560/img1985a.jpg

Rickg357

16th of December 2010 (Thu), 01:04

Overcast day at the Sacramento Zoo.

Shutter 1/400 sec, F/5.6, ISO 1600, Focal 300mm
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/2218/img1648t.jpg

Link to full image:
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/8279/img1648wy.jpg

Shutter 1/250 sec, F/5, ISO 640, Focal 161mm
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/3497/img1647v.jpg

Link to full image:
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/236/img1647p.jpg

Rickg357

16th of December 2010 (Thu), 01:10

Overcast day at the Sacramento Zoo. Last one, Sorry for all the photos

Shutter 1/500 sec, F/8, ISO 640, Focal 300mm
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1645/img1846wp.jpg
Link to full image:
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/9076/img1846c.jpg

Shutter 1/500 sec, F/5.6, ISO 640, Focal 300mm
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2937/img1709w.jpg
Link to full image:
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/4374/img1709n.jpg

bigrig

16th of December 2010 (Thu), 13:31

Overcast day at the Sacramento Zoo. Last one, Sorry for all the photos
They look good, thanks for the samples!

mikiort

17th of December 2010 (Fri), 03:40

Tamron SP AF 70-300 mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD
Canon 500D
300mm, f/5.6

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5161/5267807017_814bdae5d1_b_d.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5050/5268415244_61fee62404_b_d.jpg

mzondeki

17th of December 2010 (Fri), 10:06

Got mine...
First Impression . plastic, appears cheap and build quality no good.. disappointed with look.. looks different than pictures on web. However the reference point was canon 70-200 F4LIS.

Test Drove It. IMPRESSED with VC. Got amazing crisp shot with VC on at 300mm, 1/15sec F5.6 ISO 1600 (pretty low light).
Will post image when on weekend.

kaunis hetki photography

17th of December 2010 (Fri), 11:35

anyone planning on shooting portraits...even candids with this? I love birds but I don't shoot birds so I would love to see some people.

mikiort

18th of December 2010 (Sat), 14:28

anyone planning on shooting portraits...even candids with this? I love birds but I don't shoot birds so I would love to see some people.
Here it is:
300mm, f/5.6

mikiort

18th of December 2010 (Sat), 14:40

168mm. f/5

mikiort

18th of December 2010 (Sat), 15:39

161mm, f/7.1
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5201/5272322242_3444a62b28_b_d.jpg

mikiort

19th of December 2010 (Sun), 10:48

300mm, f/7.1
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5164/5274446614_f564898b33_b_d.jpg

bigrig

19th of December 2010 (Sun), 23:26

Alright, just got this lens today. Took a walk tonight with the full moon and christmas lights, I am stoked! VC/IS is awesome. All shots taken with a Canon 40D. Previous telephoto was the Sigma 70-300 APO DG, and I would have to generally double the focal length to get a sharp shot.

282mm 1/30 f5.6 ISO400
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5084/5276525544_2e96f91e9f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/5276525544/)
IMG_0765B (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/5276525544/) by bigrig (http://www.flickr.com/people/53598920@N00/), on Flickr

Playing around with manual focus. 300mm 1/8 f5.6 ISO1600
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5121/5275917011_0b9a18b4a4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/5275917011/)
IMG_0788B (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/5275917011/) by bigrig (http://www.flickr.com/people/53598920@N00/), on Flickr

300mm 1/60 f5.6 ISO1600
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5275917101_3ed34e5ffe_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/5275917101/)
IMG_0790B (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/5275917101/) by bigrig (http://www.flickr.com/people/53598920@N00/), on Flickr

Moon shot. I tried smaller apertures but this was the best result. 300mm 1/320 f5.6 ISO100
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5169/5275917119_6e61515b51_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/5275917119/)
IMG_0798B (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/5275917119/) by bigrig (http://www.flickr.com/people/53598920@N00/), on Flickr

This one, not a great shot. But, for 1/4 second?? I was impressed: 300mm, 1/4s, f5.6, ISO800
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5010/5276526030_6571d624e8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/5276526030/)
IMG_0801B (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53598920@N00/5276526030/) by bigrig (http://www.flickr.com/people/53598920@N00/), on Flickr