Canon 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS vs Tamron SP 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di VC USD

I do read his reviews, but typically stay away from the test charts. I realize he can't use every Canon body on the market for every test, so using the charts is not really fair in regards to that. But this seems so far off I can't help but think he had a bad copy to begin with. I do remember reading a thread here that the earlier copies of the Tamron had some problems, which could be the case with his. Fortunatly mine is later than those, and for the money I still think it's a pretty good lens no matter what the chart shows. I also think the 55-250 is good for what it is as well, and probably the better buy money wise. They are close is real life photos imo..

cagenuts wrote in post #12895177
wombatHorror, did you ever finalise your 73L/72L/T shoot-out findings with pictures?

not yet, i did toss up a very few sample images though (70mm at f/4 and 280/300mm at f/5.6 I think) in a couple posts

i did it all but didn't write it all up and edit and set the pictures up etc.
don't feel like digging for the posts or reposting all the links but if you look in this gallery you can find them (some other junk or test photos and stuff in here, a few pics not even my own, such as the soccer), look for the ones with the back of the hundreds and the ones with the test charts, hopefully the filenames you can figure out what is what (the ones with the test chart have copies at 100% and 200%), differences are easiest to spot saving each and then flipping back and forth in image viewer, the ones with the bark were less carefully done, real world tests of tamron 70-300VC and 70-200 f/4 IS from a year prior, might be worth a look too:
http://www.smugmug.com​/gallery/14112541_pdDz​J

make sure to examine and save only the original sizes

cagenuts wrote in post #12896162
Not just you but as I said earlier, he always seems to fight with non-Canon brands. Always some drama.

I just wish you could choose a crop body for some of the EF type lenses instead of being forced into the FF body.

It does seem like he seems to get junk copies of third party lenses (photozone too, with some exceptions, one thing about photozone is they rely and people sending stuff in and maybe people who think they have great copies dont wanna risk shipping it to them and people who suspect poor copies dont; mind the risk and hope to find out that their fears were not valid?).

My tamron is early serial number and I have to say it looks a lot better than his at 300mm f/5.6. It's no match for 70-300L or 70-200 f/4 IS but it does look better than his copy at both 70mm and 300mm and even at 200mm stopped down. It's more like results he got at the other focal lengths.

One other odd thing is that he says the 70-300L has worst CA at 300mm and lesser amounts at 70m but both photozone.de, slrgear (despite their bizarre findings that the 70-300L was less sharp than the non-L and the old pre-VC tamron! not sure what was going on there, it scored higher than the tamron but they said they tamron was good and then they seemed to directly compare results taken on camera bodies with different photosite densities or something) and myself had the 70-300l with more CA at 70mm than 300mm (in my case and SLR we found a lot more CA at 70mm than 300mm even).