on the fence...Tamron 70-300 VC USD or Canon 70-300L

The L, if you can swing it. The lens has that magical pop to it. All SooC from a 60D other than some crops.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​600805814/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​665482204/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/7​823109604/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/8​041433210/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/8​687899511/

Was searching the forum in order to figure out if I was to go for the Canon non-L or the Tamron. With all those great pictures and that comparison site made it quite clear which one to go for and especially when the Canon is about 110€ more than the Tamron.

So guess I just wanted to say, thank you!

jumped over the fence and landed in .....got a Tamron on Saturday and returning it today....VC jumped after initial lock-on, AF was very sporatic,hunted WAY TOO MUCH, image quality was not what I expected....VERY MUCH a case of "get what you pay for" IMO....size and build weren't bad but that's about it.....tested it in 2 different scenarios that I would be using it for and results from both left much to be desired.

Hi all. Just scanning through this thread. Its a good thing that you've tried the other option, it should make the next decision easier, and if you do plug for the 70-300L then you'll be able to justify the extra cash

For what its worth I think it's a superb lens and worth every penny.

the price difference of course is huge. I have owned both. for the price difference, you get slightly better color and contrast, and far far far better autofocusing. A good calibrated 70-300 VC will be optically very good. Not as sharp as the L, but very good. if you shoot on a crop sensor, and crop a lot, you will see the difference. If not, you wont.

kevindar wrote in post #16281363
the price difference of course is huge. I have owned both. for the price difference, you get slightly better color and contrast, and far far far better autofocusing. A good calibrated 70-300 VC will be optically very good. Not as sharp as the L, but very good. if you shoot on a crop sensor, and crop a lot, you will see the difference. If not, you wont.

@300, it is quite weak and I occasionally use it for panoramics. It does the job for my uses, and quite sharp under 200. I really do have to stop it way down @300, and that's not possible a lot of the time.

charlies, the copy that I had was pretty decent at 300 actually.
Here is the thing to the OP. for a limited budget, you get a wonderful lens at 350 (after rebate). be very happy with it. If budget is not an issue, or if you just want the best, get the L.

The Tamron is nice, well built and the best thing available for the money. It does not compare to the L. I have to replace my Tamy because it fell too many times (long sad story). If I could, I would definitely get the L. It is the only 70-300 I know off that's better than the Tamy, much better. It's only problem is that it's white - attracts too much attention

rgs wrote in post #16281828
The Tamron is nice, well built and the best thing available for the money. It does not compare to the L. I have to replace my Tamy because it fell too many times (long sad story). If I could, I would definitely get the L. It is the only 70-300 I know off that's better than the Tamy, much better. It's only problem is that it's white - attracts too much attention

Spray paint! Oh wait.

I haven't had an issue with the color. I have it insured and the color doesn't bother me. Any large lens is going to attract some attention and the occasional comment.

got a replacement for the Tamron, have yet to put it through a real test, but VC performs as it should.
Guess I got one that was faulty. Will give it a chance to prove itself, before unloading it for the "L". The 70-300L is in a class by itself, wonder why Sigma has not matched it in a EX lens, the 50-150 2.8 seems to be very much a 'L' quality lens.

I've got both. For me the Tamrons' s a great lens. The VC is quite different to the L and I liked the way you know it's working...it locks on like an exocet! It can appear jerky though whereas the Canon is more fluid.

At 300mm the L's a joy to use wide open but the Tamron does very well when stepped down though still not as sharp as the L wide open (in my experience anyway)

I do find that colour's marginally better too...more pop as previously mentioned.

AF also seems a fraction faster.

All of these are minor improvements over the Tamron and only you can determine whether they justify the significant price difference.

One other plus with the L...if you get a crap shot you can't blame the lens!

The Digital Picture that was linked to shows a poor example of the Tamron lens, or there is a problem with their test of this lens. My own Tamron lens doesn't look like that at all. I agree that the L has some advantages over the Tamron but it really depends whether they are worth the much higher price or not. It's not like the Tamron is soft and the L is sharp (and if that's the case, I guess it's a defective Tamron lens, or some other issue).

Here is a comparison of the Tamron at 200mm (left side) and 300mm (right side). The top shows TDP samples and the bottom shows my own samples. All crops are 100% (assuming TDP shows 100% crops too) and taken at f/5.6 (wide open for 300mm). To me it looks like TDP shows a very big difference in sharpness while my own lens shows just a small difference.

kin2son wrote in post #16035438
You get what you pay for, simple as that.

So if the 70-300 non L is 110$ more expensive than the Tamron it's automaticvally better? HMMMM Wait.... ohhhh... errrr..... no that does not seem to be true at all, indeed the cheaper lens is much better overall.

Seems your sweeping statement here does not work.

ed rader wrote in post #16036342
"...for the money".

Same example for Ed, as big time Canon lover, what's your take on the 70-300 non L, is that what you should get for the money or do you agree that your dig at Tamron is actually backfiring here?

Ok kidding aside, the 70-300L is better, but it's absolutely nonsensical to make a statement as "you get what you pay for" as this simply does not hold up at all. The Sigma's F2.8 EX DC OS HSM is absolutely an example of where you can indeed pay less for a better alternative. The 70-300 VC is another example that is just much better than the 70-300 non L (The digital picture has really odd results here which do not jive with photozone etc.).

The L was a fantastic lens when I had it, and it hurt to give it up, but using the Tamron for a little while wonder why it is priced so low, should be at least twice what it is. Hoping rumors of a new 100-400L are true, based on the 70-300L zoom setup, no more trombone....

gibbit1 wrote in post #16035466
Yes and yes. But that being said, the Tamron is a phenomenal lens for the money. It's 1/4 the price of the Canon, takes wonderfully sharp images, quick ring-type auto-focus, and has 3-4 stop IS (VC in Tamron's parlance). It's solidly built, but certainly not "L" quality.

I just used mine at a wedding reception last night. I took some nicely sharp images from the balcony in low light with it wide open on my 5d2. I hand held them at 1/60 at 300mm and the VC system worked perfectly.

I guess you just have to decide whether or not the Canon is worth $1,000 more than the Tamron. For me, I can't see how it would be.

This may have sold the lens for me. I am looking for a budget wedding zoom lens. I am just afraid of it's resale. Canon holds at least 80% of it's value.