Test: Canon 70-300mm (non-L) vs Tamron 70-300 VC USD

[HyperYagami]

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).

[HyperYagami]

IQ:

[HyperYagami]

100% crops (but at the mercy of flickr, might be not anymore).

This is done via mounting the camera on a tripod. Since the Tamron is slightly heavier the framings are not 100% exact. For this test, the exposure are kept constant, i.e., stop down 1/3 stop but also increase shutter speed by 1/3 stop. Tamron is dialed in MA of -5 and Canon is pain in the **** to MA via the method here, so I leave it at 0. The pics are converted via DPP.

Tamron's CA is more obvious than Canon's, even after stopping down to f/8. Stopping down Tamron's does improve it a little bit as many has pointed out. Due to the CA Canon's seems to have better center sharpness than Tamron's. However once we move to the edges Canon just fall apart.

Notice we get better yellow and red from the Tamron.

[HyperYagami]

In general Tamron usually meter the same scene slightly brighter than Canon (more on that later). Combined that with CA, Canon usually looks sharper in the middle (but really not that noticeable until you pixel-peeping).

Notice Tamron usually have better colors and contrast (more on that later).

[HyperYagami]

The outdoor shots are done in Av mode, handheld with IS/VC on.

In terms of details they're really about the same, probably due to contrast if any. Bokeh-wise, they're about the same too, with the Canon looks tiny bit slightly busier but my pics are not scientific enough to draw real conclusions.

In terms of color and constast, I really think the Tamron wins. My biggest complain about Canon's has been its dull colors all along, and the tree scene shows we have deeper orange with Tamron than Canon's (on top of totally bury edges with the Canon).

As mentioned, the Tamron consistently chooses lower shutter speed than Canon under Av mode. My theory is, since we have better contrast (deeper black) on the Tamron the camera chooses lower shutter speed for it (which unfortunately makes the CA more obvious). The "top of can" test shows once we meter it at a bright spot, it chooses higher shutter speed than Canon's (because I think it has brighter brights too).

[HyperYagami]

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.

[HyperYagami]

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

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

[wombatHorror]

Originally Posted by HyperYagami

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.

[HyperYagami]

Originally Posted by wombatHorror

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.

[arctic-char]

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.

[HyperYagami]

Originally Posted by arctic-char

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.

[canon rookie]

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

[HyperYagami]

Originally Posted by canon rookie

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.

[Staiden]

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.

[HyperYagami]

Originally Posted by Staiden

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).