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

madhwesh wrote in post #16256780
After following this thread for some time, I decided to buy Tamron 70-300mm VC lens as an upgrade for my canon 55-250mm IS lens.
I did compare both lens and VC on 70-300mm is way better than IS on 55-250mm.
Posting few pics taken with new lens, all Cropped and edited.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/madhvesh/963691​0487/
Western Scrub Jay by Madhvesh Joshi, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/madhvesh/964013​8440/
IMG_7365 by Madhvesh Joshi, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/madhvesh/964013​6880/
IMG_7336 by Madhvesh Joshi, on Flickr

Nice shots!

I think this lens is an under rated lens. If focuses fast and the VC works very well.

You never know what you might see just driving on back roads.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/spur/8714053447​/

spur wrote in post #16257552
You never know what you might see just driving on back roads.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/spur/8714053447​/
IMG_6026.jpg by mongo 59, on Flickr

Great shot!

madhwesh wrote in post #16256780
After following this thread for some time, I decided to buy Tamron 70-300mm VC lens as an upgrade for my canon 55-250mm IS lens.
I did compare both lens and VC on 70-300mm is way better than IS on 55-250mm.

This lens is a pretty good value lens, but I still think the 55-250 is the better value. I always thought the Tam 70-300 was the lens to buy instead of purchasing the 55-250, for someone who didn't own a tele-zoom. For those with the 55-250 already, I personally think stepping up to the 70-200 f/4L is the best choice.


With that said, your pics look great! Just go out and have fun taking pics with the new lens.

If you are looking for reach, "upgrading" to a shorter lens isn't a good solution. 70-200 is noticeably shorter. For distant or small subjects (like birds) the difference between 200 and 300mm makes up for any sharpness difference in the lenses by a good margin because you will be cropping so much less.

tkbslc wrote in post #16259034
If you are looking for reach, "upgrading" to a shorter lens isn't a good solution. 70-200 is noticeably shorter. For distant or small subjects (like birds) the difference between 200 and 300mm makes up for any sharpness difference in the lenses by a good margin because you will be cropping so much less.

Very true, however, he didn't specifically mention he was looking for more reach. Not to mention, going up or down 50mm at that end of the focal range isn't really a significant difference. If reach is the primary concern while owning a 55-250, then maybe the 70-200 with a 1.4/2.0X TC or the 100-400L would be the better choice.

200 vs 250mm is a 25% increase in diagonal measurement and 56% more pixels on subject

250 to 300mm is a 20% increase in diagonal measurement and 44% more pixels on subject.

It is definitely significant for wildlife, etc.

70-200 F4 IS + 1.4x TC and 100-400L are well over $1000 lens options. I don't think most shopping in the 55-250 and 70-300VC price range have that kind of money. 70-200L,non-IS, maybe, but then you are going to get slower AF, f5.6 aperture and no IS, so that hardly seems like it would be better than the 70-300 VC. I sincerely doubt it could be.

tkbslc wrote in post #16259188
200 vs 250mm is a 25% increase in diagonal measurement and 56% more pixels on subject

250 to 300mm is a 20% increase in diagonal measurement and 44% more pixels on subject.

well, when you put it like that I feel silly ...but having used a 200, 250, and 300mm, I personally didn't feel like I gained any practical advantage with the 50mm difference. Then again, I wasn't shooting wildlife. FWIW, the other member might not even be looking for extra reach, and regardless, he already made his purchase so our opinions don't make much difference to him.

mannetti21 wrote in post #16259222
well, when you put it like that I feel silly ...but having used a 200, 250, and 300mm, I personally didn't feel like I gained any practical advantage with the 50mm difference. Then again, I wasn't shooting wildlife. FWIW, the other member might not even be looking for extra reach, and regardless, he already made his purchase so our opinions don't make much difference to him.

I do like taking photos of birds. I worked with canon 55-250mm lens for more than a year.
I took tamron 70-300mm in 2 outings and it seems to be much more promising.
I know there is not much difference between 250mm and 300m. Difference between 200mm and 300mm is too much.
I paid less than 350$ post rebate for tamron 70-300mm VC and I can sell 55-250mm lens as well. I still have an option to return the lens, but I will be keeping it.

70-200f4 IS with 1.4x runs upto 1400$. It is way behind my budget and I don't make money from my photos.
Other options I explored are sigma 120-400mm, canon 300mm f4L IS but all of them are expensive and "heavy".

So are you guys saying that the 55-250 is a sharper lens?

guitarjeff wrote in post #16259581
So are you guys saying that the 55-250 is a sharper lens?

No, but the price difference between the two lens doesn't match up with the improved sharpness and image quality, in my opinion. And again, In my opinion, if I already owned the 55-250, I wouldn't consider spending more money to move up to the 55-250. That money would be better spent/saved towards one of the Canon 70-200's or a 100-400. If I didn't already own a tele-zoom, and wanted to keep a tight budget, only then would I consider the Tamron 70-300.

I took my Tammy to Butchart Gardens in Vancouver, and LOVED the results with it!

#1 is awesome, great work.

Thanks Mannetti21!

Those are really nice, PicBug! Well done