Canon EF 70-300 IS USM vs. Tamron 18-270 VC PZD

Does the lens buying, selling and trading ever end? I've upgraded my equipment quite a bit but I'm still not 100% completely happy with what I have. With the exception of my Tokina macro lens, which I really, really like, I feel like I have good/acceptable stuff but not great and I'd like to remedy that at least to some small degree.

I'm leaning towards selling or trading my Sigma 150-500 OS and one of the two lenses in the thread title to purchase a lightly used 100-400L. The Sigma seems OK/pretty good but I'm still not blown away with it (might be a user error sort of thing or that I just haven't completely gotten the hang of it yet).

I don't see any big advantage to either the 70-300 IS USM or the Tamron. I think that both are pretty sharp but sometimes I like one better and other times I like the other. I THINK that the Canon lens is maybe a bit sharper but the Tamron is a lot more flexible as it is a pretty good "one lens that never comes off the camera" sort of thing. Oh, one more thing to throw into the mix, I also have the Canon EF-S 55-250. I had it sold on Ebay but the buyer backed out and it's still in a box since I have the other two lenses and don't really need it right now.

I have to admit that I've been leaning towards letting the Tamron go but if I did, that would leave me with only my 18-55 kit lens on the wide end. Admittedly, I don't take a ton of landscapes but I wouldn't mind having something a bit better on the wide end as well. I realize that there's no absolute answer to these things but would anyone like to offer opinions about the IQ of the 70-300 IS USM, the Tamron 18-270 and the "nifty two-fifty" and give any other thoughts about my situation? Maybe your advice would be to keep the Bigmos as well, I don't want to fall into the trap of always selling and trading lenses unless I'm going to see some noticeable improvement after the "upgrade".

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

Here are a few photos that I recently took with the Bigmos. Keep in mind that these are the good ones. It's certainly not a total disaster and I've taken some very nice photos with that lens but it also seems like there's an enormous number of throw aways for each really good one. Like I said before, maybe it's just that I'm not really familiar with it yet or maybe that's just the nature of the supertelephotos, I don't know.

The only thing the 70-300mm buys you, whether you keep the Sigma 150-500 or swap for a 100-400L, is a smaller, lighter weight telephoto. If that is not important to you, the decision should be easy. Both the Sigma and L give you more reach and better image quality over the 70-300.

The Tamron provides you with a single, large range zoom lens for times you want to travel very light -- something the 70-300 cannot do. If you have to pick one of those two lenses to keep, the Tamron would be the one I would hang onto.

Scott M wrote in post #14843822
The only thing the 70-300mm buys you, whether you keep the Sigma 150-500 or swap for a 100-400L, is a smaller, lighter weight telephoto. If that is not important to you, the decision should be easy. Both the Sigma and L give you more reach and better image quality over the 70-300.

The Tamron provides you with a single, large range zoom lens for times you want to travel very light -- something the 70-300 cannot do. If you have to pick one of those two lenses to keep, the Tamron would be the one I would hang onto.

Thanks for the input Scott. I realize that there's a good bit of duplication between the 70-300 and the "big lenses" but you're right, there are times when you want a lighter, shorter lens on the camera, lots of times actually, so I don't mind some duplication. I also agree with you that the Tamron offers advantages over the 70-300 (or the 55-250) in convenience but I guess I'm curious if the IQ is similar, better or worse. Like I said previously, sometimes I think the 70-300 is much sharper and other times not so much. I'm also curious about things like chromatic aberration, distortion, vignetting, etc.. I'm really not a good enough judge of such things and wonder if other posters that own or have used these lenses have an opinion on such things.

Birding is not a cheap hobby. With that said, the 100-400 is a class above both 70-300 non-L and the Tamron. I would dump both of them if your main focus is birding.

I can't comment on the Sigma, but I truly believe in 'you get what you pay for', it's no match compare to say a 400/500mm prime.

kin2son wrote in post #14843868
Birding is not a cheap hobby. With that said, the 100-400 is a class above both 70-300 non-L and the Tamron. I would dump both of them if your main focus is birding.

I can't comment on the Sigma, but I truly believe in 'you get what you pay for', it's no match compare to say a 400/500mm prime.

That's precisely wanted I wanted to know and I appreciate your opinion that the 100-400 is a class above the other lenses. I wouldn't say that I concentrate on birding but definitely on nature and wildlife. Being a hobbyist, I also really can't afford a fast prime like we'd all like to have but selling a few of the lenses I presently have to afford the L glass is definitely doable.

Bill Ragosta wrote in post #14843892
That's precisely wanted I wanted to know and I appreciate your opinion that the 100-400 is a class above the other lenses.

Of course it is. The 100-400 costs more than the 70-300 and 18-270 combined

Remember I said you get what you pay for??:p

There's no contest really...

kin2son wrote in post #14843899
Of course it is. The 100-400 costs more than the 70-300 and 18-270 combined

Remember I said you get what you pay for??:p

There's no contest really...

No, obviously I wasn't comparing the L glass to those two lenses but I'm curious if it would be a big upgrade from my Sigma 150-500 OS.

Bill Ragosta wrote in post #14843832
Thanks for the input Scott. I realize that there's a good bit of duplication between the 70-300 and the "big lenses" but you're right, there are times when you want a lighter, shorter lens on the camera, lots of times actually, so I don't mind some duplication. I also agree with you that the Tamron offers advantages over the 70-300 (or the 55-250) in convenience but I guess I'm curious if the IQ is similar, better or worse. Like I said previously, sometimes I think the 70-300 is much sharper and other times not so much. I'm also curious about things like chromatic aberration, distortion, vignetting, etc.. I'm really not a good enough judge of such things and wonder if other posters that own or have used these lenses have an opinion on such things.

I completely understand the desire to have a smaller, lighter telephoto. It's one of the reasons I kept the 70-200 f/4 IS after buying the 100-400L.

As for comparing the 70-300 to the Tamron for image quality, I cannot help you there, as I've never used the Tamron, nor any of the other "super zoom" lens for crop bodies. However, I did own the 70-300 at one time, and was never a fan of the lens. I found it soft at 300mm, and its auto focus performance was lackluster, especially in lower light. I upgraded to the 70-200 f/4 IS soon after it hit the market, and was much happier.

If you want a light telephoto to supplement the Sigma or 100-400L, I would think the EFS 55-250 IS would offer at least as good of performance as the 70-300 IS, and you could regain some funds towards another lens purchase.

Scott M wrote in post #14843915
I completely understand the desire to have a smaller, lighter telephoto. It's one of the reasons I kept the 70-200 f/4 IS after buying the 100-400L.

As for comparing the 70-300 to the Tamron for image quality, I cannot help you there, as I've never used the Tamron, nor any of the other "super zoom" lens for crop bodies. However, I did own the 70-300 at one time, and was never a fan of the lens. I found it soft at 300mm, and its auto focus performance was lackluster, especially in lower light. I upgraded to the 70-200 f/4 IS soon after it hit the market, and was much happier.

If you want a light telephoto to supplement the Sigma or 100-400L, I would think the EFS 55-250 IS would offer at least as good of performance as the 70-300 IS, and you could regain some funds towards another lens purchase.

OK, also helpful and honest. I appreciate your thoughts and tend to agree with them.

for pure IQ the 18-55is and 70-300IS will be better than the tamron...the tamron gives you convenience though...but superzooms always sacrifice IQ for convenience...have you thought about a 400L if you're doing a lot of BIF it might be the way to go

I can't speak to the 150-500. I have owned and used the 70-300 IS USM, the black one, and the 100-400L. I sold the 70-300 because I found it to be a tad soft at 300 and I wanted better. My choice of upgrade was the 100-400L. I get better results with the 100-400L wide-open at 400mm than I got with the 70-300 at f/8 and 300mm. To me, it was a significant difference. It does take a fair amount of practice. The 100-400L is comparatively huge. For all of that money I also got a little more reach, and mediocre IS. Well, I am not positive it is all IS. I find 400mm in a 3 pound 14+ inch long lens rather difficult to hand hold. The Sigma 120-400 is heavier. The 150-500 is a lot heavier, and longer, too. I may pick up the 55-250 some day for when I don't feel like carrying, or don't need "The Beast".

DreDaze wrote in post #14844503
for pure IQ the 18-55is and 70-300IS will be better than the tamron...the tamron gives you convenience though...but superzooms always sacrifice IQ for convenience...have you thought about a 400L if you're doing a lot of BIF it might be the way to go

Like I said, I can't really afford the faster primes. I do some bird in flight but that's certainly not my focus. I took those shots on a recent trip to Alaska and while I'd like to go back next week, it's unlikely that I'll be going again very soon.

TSchrief wrote in post #14844508
I can't speak to the 150-500. I have owned and used the 70-300 IS USM, the black one, and the 100-400L. I sold the 70-300 because I found it to be a tad soft at 300 and I wanted better. My choice of upgrade was the 100-400L. I get better results with the 100-400L wide-open at 400mm than I got with the 70-300 at f/8 and 300mm. To me, it was a significant difference. It does take a fair amount of practice. The 100-400L is comparatively huge. For all of that money I also got a little more reach, and mediocre IS. Well, I am not positive it is all IS. I find 400mm in a 3 pound 14+ inch long lens rather difficult to hand hold. The Sigma 120-400 is heavier. The 150-500 is a lot heavier, and longer, too. I may pick up the 55-250 some day for when I don't feel like carrying, or don't need "The Beast".

Thanks for the observations, especially the part about the 100-400 being sharper wide open than the 70-300 USM at f8.

Bill Ragosta wrote in post #14843909
No, obviously I wasn't comparing the L glass to those two lenses but I'm curious if it would be a big upgrade from my Sigma 150-500 OS.

So is that what you are planning to do? Selling the 150-500 for 100-400??

Personally I'd sell all three and go 70-200f4 + 100-400.