Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM OR Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD SP AFTweet Share

Im not too sure the advice a guy i met is right, he thinks the tamron taking in the price difference is a better bet and the zoom gives more options any views please, id be shooting Deer, Butterflys, and a few Bird's thank you...Ray

happyduck wrote in post #18229599
Im not too sure the advice a guy i met is right, he thinks the tamron taking in the price difference is a better bet and the zoom gives more options any views please, id be shooting Deer, Butterflys, and a few Bird's thank you...Ray

The 300L is by far the better lens in Image quality and lets in one stop more light than the Tamron at 300. My copy of the Tamron 70-300 was a little soft at 300, would miss-focus about 20% of the time at the long end and the VC was a little jerky at times. I ended up returning my Tamron to B&H.

If your ok with zooming with your feet, or cropping in post and money is no problem, buy the 300L. If you want the zoom buy the 100-400L/II or 70-300L. If money is a concern, I highly suggest Canon's new 70-300 IS II ( not the v1 ), way better than my Tamron was...............

I've never shot a 300 f/4L, but logic tells you it is much better than the Tamron VC. The L is a fast(er) prime. Two points in its favor. I have had the Canon 70-300 IS (micro-motor). It stinks at 300, but sharpens up a lot by stopping down to f/8. And it is better than the Tamron.

You can use the 300 f/4L at f/4. You won't like the Tamron or cheap Canon at f/5.6. Effective 2 stops different, which is huge.

The L is about $900 used. The Tamron is about $200 used. That is a big hint.

If you are spending $200-300 for this lens, get the Tamron or Canon (micro-motor). A way better deal (IQ & AF per $$) is the original 100-400L for about $600-700 used, or the 70-300L for about $900.

Unless you have budget constraints, I'd steer clear of the Tamron. As has been said it's soft at 300mm and, let's be honest, 300mm will be where it'll get used the most.

happyduck wrote in post #18229599
id be shooting Deer, Butterflys, and a few Bird's

Get the 100-400 II.
If too expensive, a used 400/5.6 (but it won't work very well for butterflies due to the high minimum focusing distance). If butterflies are important, then get a used 300/4.

How nice are the original Canon 100-400 L series? I've got a 75-300 IS USM right now for an 80D, but may need a little more zoom for outdoors.

The 100-400 v1 has a magnification ratio of 0.2x, and is not as sharp as the primes. Considering the resolution of modern sensors, I think the lens is obsolete and its price will go down continuously.

The only advantage would be the 100-399 range that I personally don't find very useful for the subjects discussed in the original post.

That said, the 100-400 v2 is a different story. I am still keeping the 400/5.6 as my "walkaround 400" because of the weight and size, otherwise I would have upgraded to the 100-400 v2. It is so good.

happyduck wrote in post #18229599
Im not too sure the advice a guy i met is right, he thinks the tamron taking in the price difference is a better bet and the zoom gives more options any views please, id be shooting Deer, Butterflys, and a few Bird's thank you...Ray

Assuming you currently own both lenses in your signature, I would not swap from your current lenses to the Tamron; whomever told you that it was a better lens than your current lenses is trying to move some hardware. The 18-200 is going to be close enough to on par w/ the Tamron at overlapping focal lengths, and the 300 is going to be notably better at 300.

harveyhaddixfan wrote in post #18232458
How nice are the original Canon 100-400 L series? I've got a 75-300 IS USM right now for an 80D, but may need a little more zoom for outdoors.

It's a great lens and light years ahead of any iteration of the 75-300.