Tamron 70-300 VC vs. Canon 70-300 IS vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L

I am looking at the Tamron 70-300 VC, the Canon 70-300 IS and the Canon 70-200 f/4L. I would love the 70-200 f/4L, but it doesn't have IS and I cannot afford the IS version. I was then looking at the Canon 70-300 IS, but it has a rotating front element and doesn't have full time manual focus. That's when I stumbled upon the Tamron 70-300 VC. I am fairly sure that this lens fits my desires, but how does it actually perform in relation to these two lenses, and am I making the correct choice?

The Tamron 70-300 VC USD is an excellent lens. Great range, excellent VC unit, and has ring AF with FTM. If you want to go cheap and still very good, check out the Canon 55-250 IS.

[Note: I assume you are not talking about the 70-300 L IS above.]

The Tamron is an excellent lens, by far the best choice of those mentioned.

Completely happy with my Tamron 70-300 VC. Most reviews say the Tamron and (non-L) Canon are similar in optical quality but the Tamron is (IMO) way ahead in function and usability. The Tamron's FTM and non-rotating front element focusing plus very nice (if a bit noisy) VC make the current, non-L Canon almost an antique in comparison. It does get knocked by some for not so great IQ at the long end (as does the Canon), but in "real world" use, I haven't found that to be the case, even wide open. Then again, I don't spend my time photographing test charts... The Tamron also has a 6 yr. warranty vs. Canon's 1 yr. About the only minor annoyance I've found is the "backwards" zoom rotation but at least it manual focuses in the same direction as the EF lenses. Oh, and it would have been nice if the Tamron also used a 58mm filter, but I'll live. For the money (about $400 after rebate) the Tamron is definitely worthy of consideration.

I also have the Tamron 70-300, and I would recommend it as well. I really compared it to the canon 70-300 non-L when I was looking and was just more impressed with the Tamron. I got mine for 350$ after rebate back in June, much better deal than the canon IMO. Even at 400$ its still the better buy I think. It is possible however, that the canon is better made, as my tamron has developed a squeak in the autofocus, I need to get it looked at.

Had the 70-200 f4L non IS and sold it but kept the Tamron 70-300VC. It was just more versatile than the L and the IQ is very good. It is a very solid lens and an amazing bargain.

The tamron is great for the price. The one I have is better then the canon version I tried (in sharpness and AF speed. Colors were the same)

I never owned the non-IS 70-200 f4L but I did own the IS version and some people say the IS version is slightly better optically some say it's the same. All I can say is the f4L IS is a better lens then the tamron 70-300 VC. Sharper, better AF, better colors, and constant aperture.

If you Absolutly need IS/OS/VC then I'd say go with the tamron. If you don't then take a serious look at the 70-200 f4L

Canon 70-200 L range is amazing in image quality.

I find the Tamron 70-300 VC to be an excellent lens for the bucks! Cant go wrong with it in my opinion. Its on my cam 90% of the time.

I got a Tamron 70-300 VC and I use it much more than I do my 70-200 2.8 non-IS.

I love it. The IQ is great, the weight is quite okay and the range is awesome. It's a cheap lens indeed, but it performs just like an expensive lens.

If you absolutely need IS/VC then the tamron is the right lens for you, but if you think you can manage without, then the 70-200 beats it in IQ, build quality and AF.

Also considering this choice as I HATE the white cannon lenses, they bring so much unwanted attention in crowds etc.

Is the image quality comparable? Obviously the canon is better and I have had experience with it however it the tamron close to the legendary 70-200mm's?

Put protective neoprene skin on it, doesn't have to be white.
I like 70_200F4 because it is not extending. I found it very practical and critical in crowded events and then I need tripod as well.
You'll be noticed with Tamron as soon as it extends, no difference with 70_200F4, which is relatively small lens.

CallumRD1 wrote in post #15276203
I am looking at the Tamron 70-300 VC, the Canon 70-300 IS and the Canon 70-200 f/4L. I would love the 70-200 f/4L, but it doesn't have IS and I cannot afford the IS version. I was then looking at the Canon 70-300 IS, but it has a rotating front element and doesn't have full time manual focus. That's when I stumbled upon the Tamron 70-300 VC. I am fairly sure that this lens fits my desires, but how does it actually perform in relation to these two lenses, and am I making the correct choice?

You could look at these images from a Tamron 70-300mm vibration control lens to decide if one is worth purchasing.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

DC Fan wrote in post #15277882
You could look at these images from a Tamron 70-300mm vibration control lens to decide if one is worth purchasing.

The Tamon lens did a good job in these situations.

In all of these situations, the Canon will do better because you won't need IS. Honestly, these are good but not spectacular pictures. In pic 2, two players are not sharp, perhaps the focus was off. The Canon will be much better at auto focus so that you can nail the eyes of the player of your choice there.

Here's the breakdown for you:

Canon advantages:

picture quality
faster auto focus
non expanding
reliability
fixed F4 aperture.

Tamron advantages:

price a bit cheaper
IS
longer range

It is your choice.