Size:

The Tamron is noticeably bigger, heavier and better built. Zoom wheels and all are tight, no wobbles, front barrel doesn't rotate, etc etc. 62mm vs 58mm thread size on Canon's. Around the same length fully extended, but Tamron's hood is longer. Tamron's slightly heavier (1lb 14.3oz vs 1lb 8.9oz).

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IQ:

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IS/VC:

Tamron's is godlike, it really literal freezes the scene. Canon's not bad, but Tamron's better. However sometimes you feel like you have to fight with it to get it out of the little spot you're trying to focus on, so it's really not for really really tiny objects.

Conclusion: I believe the Tamron gives you a better rendered picture. If you don't mind dealing with the CA at the post (Lightroom currently does not have the lens profile for this yet) it does give you better looking pictures.

Flickr sucks, so feel free to grab the ZIP file:

http://www.megaupload.​com/?d=4W9XZBFJ

HyperYagami wrote in post #11278283
IS/VC:

Tamron's is godlike, it really literal freezes the scene. Canon's not bad, but Tamron's better. However sometimes you feel like you have to fight with it to get it out of the little spot you're trying to focus on, so it's really not for really really tiny objects.

Conclusion: I believe the Tamron gives you a better rendered picture. If you don't mind dealing with the CA at the post (Lightroom currently does not have the lens profile for this yet) it does give you better looking pictures.

the center CA aberration from the tamron is longitudinal though which is a beast to correct though

were those all at 300mm?

i found the 70-300 IS to have good color and contrast on the wide side and then poor contrat and color at 300mm.

wombatHorror wrote in post #11278395
were those all at 300mm?

shoe, can on wood pole, and 12 cans pics aren't, the rest are 300mm.

Oh OK, well to me I'll trade a little CA for better colors.

Thanks for posting HyperYagami. I have the 70-300 IS and am looking for something that will perform better at the long end. From your comparison I don't see enough of an improvement (if any) to warrant changing to the Tamron. I may have to look at the new 70-300 L or even 100-400. Will wait for some reviews of the new 70-300L.

arctic-char wrote in post #11278523
Thanks for posting HyperYagami. I have the 70-300 IS and am looking for something that will perform better at the long end. From your comparison I don't see enough of an improvement (if any) to warrant changing to the Tamron. I may have to look at the new 70-300 L or even 100-400. Will wait for some reviews of the new 70-300L.

To me the biggest improvements are edge details and better colors. I'm sure the L version is even better but it's more $$$ and lot bigger too.

Everyone feel me to hit me with more questions.

Nice test!! What's the price on these two lenses?
Paul

canon rookie wrote in post #11278670
Nice test!! What's the price on these two lenses?
Paul

right now the tamron has $50 rebate with base price $450.

you can get a used 70-300 canon for around that price or a little less, new is $520-ish.

I just bought the canon version of this lens. Its the first lens I have ever bought. I'm pretty happy with it. Thank you for the compareison of these lenses.

Staiden wrote in post #11279608
I just bought the canon version of this lens. Its the first lens I have ever bought. I'm pretty happy with it. Thank you for the compareison of these lenses.

Canon's by no mean bad. In fact I believe it does a slightly better job focusing in low light than the Tamron's (by a hair).