Tamron 70-300 vc or Canon 70-200 f4 is?

I've been saving for a bit with the F4IS in in mind and finally have enough pick up a nice used one.

Now I'm seeing some reviews claiming the Tamron performs "almost" as well as the Canon and of course offers up another 100mm for much cheaper so I'm suffering from paralysis by analysis.

Thoughts, suggestions? My subject matter will largely be my son and his friends, things I see while on the road, and an occasional college football game from the stands.

Anyone else looked at these two recently?

Thanks on advance.

TravelerTX wrote in post #12853533
I've been saving for a bit with the F4IS in in mind and finally have enough pick up a nice used one.

Now I'm seeing some reviews claiming the Tamron performs "almost" as well as the Canon and of course offers up another 100mm for much cheaper so I'm suffering from paralysis by analysis.

Thoughts, suggestions? My subject matter will largely be my son and his friends, things I see while on the road, and an occasional college football game from the stands.

Anyone else looked at these two recently?

Thanks on advance.

search my posts, i did a lot on the 70-200 f/4 IS vs 70-300L vs tamron 70-300 VC recently.

the 70-300 VC has at least 50% slower AF (although fast for a Tamron), might be a bit better at 70mm across the frame but generally can't match the 70-200 f/4 IS image quality, especially not in the center. IMO the f/4 IS definitely has better image quality unless you go above 200mm (at 280 (+1.4x TC)/300 I think the tamron does a bit better in the center and moreso at the edges).

of course football from the stands might have you locked at 280/300mm....

tamron is f/5 at 200mm vs f/4

but i posted a ton on this over the last few weeks

the images from the tamron just don't have that micro-contrast pop and occasionally get a touch of haze under bright sunlight that the L just doesn't get

I actually sold a 17-40L after getting a tamron 17-5 2.8, but in this case the tamron just doesn't cut it

I've looked at both recently, as well as a few others...the 70-300 will be at my door on Tuesday.

To summarize hour upon hour of reading reviews, comments, and looking at images, I basically could not justify the extra cost of the Canon 70-200. The Canon's image quality at the center on 100% crops (test chart photos) did appear significantly better, however, with real world subjects and at real world picture sizes, there wasn't enough difference to justify more than 3x's the cost of the Tamron. $400 vs. $1300

At one point I had thought that if I wasn't going to get the 70-200 f/4 IS, then I might as well just get the Canon 55-250 to hold me over until I was ready to spend $1300. After more comparisons between the 55-250 and the Tamron 70-300, I concluded that even at double the cost, the Tamron's extra reach, somewhat better image quality, and significantly better build quality was worth it.

Hopefully, the Tamron will serve me well enough that I won't be yearning for any of Canon's 70-200's.

LightRules wrote in post #12853581

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

Good luck!

Curse you!

If I know me well enough, I'll end up with the 70-200 F/2.8 is II before 2013. lol

The f4IS is a pro lens and about as sharp as you can get for a telephoto. The Tamron is a consumer lens but is very good. The fact that it even gets compared to the L is a testament to how good it is. But you have to keep them in proper perspective.
You will be very happy with the Tamron. It is very good and a GREAT value. Unless you are going to blow up your pictures to posters you'll love what you get with the Tamron.

BrickR wrote in post #12853631
The f4IS is a pro lens and about as sharp as you can get for a telephoto. The Tamron is a consumer lens but is very good. The fact that it even gets compared to the L is a testament to how good it is. But you have to keep them in proper perspective.
You will be very happy with the Tamron. It is very good and a GREAT value. Unless you are going to blow up your pictures to posters you'll love what you get with the Tamron.

This was also another major point of consideration before I decided to go with the Tamron. To use a car analogy, I wasn't quite yet ready to drop the cash for a high end sports car (f/4L IS), but didn't want a souped-up Honda Civic either (55-250)...so I chose the Mustang (Tamron).

Thanks for all the feedback thus far, eager to see/read more.

From the sound of it here it resembles the 35 1.4 vs. Sig 30 1.4 vs 28 1.8 debates. That the sig is even mentioned with the 35L says a good bit.

Something to think about.

I absolutely LOVE my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and consider it the best lens I have ever used, barring none!

However, for many persons uses, the Tamron would fill the needs at a portion of the price.

I am not keen on a variable aperture lens but, the VC and the 300mm is quite attractive.

I would definitely pick the Tamron over the 70-200mm f/4L Non-IS lens...

But you just ordered a 7D too...
You could have the whole weather-seal action going with the 70-200 f/4 IS...

Haha, but even then, you'd probably want the 2.8 mk2 eventually... I sorta do too.. even though I barely use my 70-200.

For that large price difference, I think ride it out for a year or so and see how much use you actually get and see how things look

Who just ordered a 7D?

I don't think the 2.8 is in my future being pretty heavy.

I really want that that F4is...but for another 6 bills. Help me Obey Won POTNenoby...

TravelerTX wrote in post #12858958
Who just ordered a 7D?

That would be me. 7D, Tamron 70-300, and CF memory all in one shot this weekend when I had absolutely no intentions of making any purchases whatsoever. $2000 later, I sit here in anticipation like a kid on Christmas eve.

I just got the Tamron and couldn't be more pleased with it. I especially like the VC (vibration compensation), which is highly effective.

Thank you for everyone's input. I think I'll head over to Glazers and take a look when I land in Seattle later today.

The more and more I look at it, if the Tamron even approaches the quality of the F4IS, has an additional 100mm, and about half the price of the pre-owned F4IS's I've been looking at I'd be daft for not at least taking a look.

Quick question for those that do own it: how is the AF speed compared to your other lenses? Compared to the F4IS?

Thanks.

mannetti21 wrote in post #12853575
To summarize hour upon hour of reading reviews, comments, and looking at images, I basically could not justify the extra cost of the Canon 70-200. The Canon's image quality at the center on 100% crops (test chart photos) did appear significantly better, however, with real world subjects and at real world picture sizes, there wasn't enough difference to justify more than 3x's the cost of the Tamron. $400 vs. $1300

At one point I had thought that if I wasn't going to get the 70-200 f/4 IS, then I might as well just get the Canon 55-250 to hold me over until I was ready to spend $1300. After more comparisons between the 55-250 and the Tamron 70-300, I concluded that even at double the cost, the Tamron's extra reach, somewhat better image quality, and significantly better build quality was worth it.

I did the same thing, and came to the same conclusion - for the money you just cannot beat Tamron 70-300. I also had a 55-250, and wanted the Canon 70-200, Ended up with getting the Tamron, and could not be happier.