Which is sharper - Tamron 100-400 or Canon 70-300 II?

I'm coming back to Canon and want a telephoto with some reach. The price of the Ls are out of reach right now (and I had the Canon 100-400L version 1 and it was too heavy for my use.) So I'm looking at the new Canon 70-300 version 2, or the newish Tamron 100-400. Has anyone used both, and if so, which one seems sharper to you? And for those of you who have one or the other - why did you choose the one you have? And are you happy with it?

I bought the 70-300 II a few months ago. It replaced two lenses: 100-400Lc, which had become too heavy for me, and the 70-200 f/4L IS, which was redundant when I bought the 70-300. I used to own the original 70-300 IS (non)-USM lens, which I thought was a really nice 70-250 lens. Anyway, the 70-300 II is well worth the money. Modern, 3+ stop IS, blazing fast nano-USM focusing, and 1/2 the size and weight of the 100-400. The 70-300 II compares quite well to the 70-200 f/4L IS. But it is tough to compare a consumer-grade lens in the middle of its range to an L at its long extreme. All in all, except for being a bit slower wrt aperture, the 70-300 II is as good as the 70-200L. The 70-300 II is also as good at 300mm as the 100-400Lc is at 400mm, both wide open. I got my 70-300 II from Canon refurbished for $379. A true bargain, as far as I'm concerned. I use it on an 80D. Well, that and an old film body when I get the chance.

I wouldn't trade the focus speed and precision of a native Canon lens for 30% reach on a 3rd party lens. You can crop that much with ease, especially on a high-mp camera.

My detailed comments on the 70-300 II: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1489524

Thanks for your response, Tom, and for your excellent detailed review. I'm planning to pair this lens with a 77D, and you're right - at 24mp, I have plenty of room to crop.

I had the 70-300 usm version 1 once upon a time, and though it was ok - it didn't compare at all to the 70-200L in terms of sharpness. Most everything I've read about this new version states that the autofocus and sharpness is much better. I've also read the reviews of the Tamron 100-400 which all state that it's also really sharp and fast (better than the sigma by far.) However, it's about $400 CA more than the Canon, and a pound heavier. I'm now leaning strongly toward the 70-300...

I don't have any info on the Tamron, but I can provide some on the 70-300 II. I shoot a 1DX2 + 100-400 II. My wife shoots a 70D + 70-300 II (which she loves). We were both at an airshow last summer. Here's a comparison (hint - the 70-300 II did an amazing job):

Great shots!

I don’t have anything to add but the Tamron looks good to me and I want to see what owners are saying so I’m subscribing.

Between these two lenses, the major difference will not be sharpness. Honestly folks, sharpness is seldom a reason to buy any lens. Cost, size,weight, focus speed, focus accuracy, and focal length all matter more to me than sharpness. If sharpness were the only concern, we'd all be shooting ONLY the EF 400mm f/2.8 II.

The choice here is between an OEM manufacturer's very nice, slightly smaller-lighter-cheaper lens that happens to have modern IS and state of the art (nano-USM) focusing, but is 100mm shorter than the competitor.

The competitor is a slightly different focal length range, insignificantly longer at the short end, and negligibly longer at the long end. It costs more, and weighs more. If 400mm does the job, 300 will do the job with a quite manageable crop. Let's agree that Tamron has stepped up it game for the last several lenses, and that there is no difference is focus speed accuracy.

The only things left to consider are: size/weight & cost. I bought the EF II because I am down-sizing from the 100-400Lc. From 1D4/100-400 to 80D/70-300 II, so focal range is almost equal. The smaller, lighter 70-300 II was the right choice for me. It was also 1/2 the price of the Tamron. I am satisfied with my choice. If you need 400mm, and the price works for you, buy the Tamron. I don't see sharpness coming into the decision between these two lenses.

Sharpness is one of the primary reasons the 100-400 II sells. That is the reason behind just about any gen II Canon in fact other that maybe better or newly introduced IS.

Sharpness is also why Sigma sells their ART line, there is no other reason to consider several of them otherwise.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18562717
Sharpness is one of the primary reasons the 100-400 II sells. That is the reason behind just about any gen II Canon in fact other that maybe better or newly introduced IS.

Sharpness is also why Sigma sells their ART line, there is no other reason to consider several of them otherwise.

I don't own a 100-400II, but I'm sure sales are driven as much by: faster AF, twist-zoom, modern IS as better sharpness. Maybe not, though.

I recently purchased a Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art. It replaced my EF 28mm f/1.8. There may be a difference in center sharpness, but the 28 1.8 is excellent in the center wide open. I opted for something: wider, faster, and way better in the corners. The fact that it 1/2 the price of the EF 24L II didn't hurt, either. It's got little to nothing on the 28 1.8 wrt to center 2/3 sharpness.

Actually many like the push/pull zoom, it is faster. The primary reason has been AF and the sharpness, almost primelike, and then the ability to add a 1.4x with little detriment.

AF and IQ are neck and neck in this extremely long thread: https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=1411​834&page=1

Sharpness is one of the first things compared lens to lens, using the lens charts, etc. For example, the only reason to buy a Sigma 135 1.8 over the Canon 135L is sharpness, certainly not the cost. There are other examples too. I would put sharpness of a lens as one of the top 3 reasons to buy a lens over another fairly equivalent one. Other factors that play a factor in comparing fairly equivalent lenses (focal ranges) would be aperture, AF and IS, in varying degrees depending on the focal range.

Well, we kind of agree. I prefer the trombone zoom on my older lens. The IQ is more than adequate for my needs. I usually shut off the IS because I am shooting at 1/800 +. Full disclosure: my 100-400 is mostly collecting dust in my closet. I've replaced it with the smaller/lighter 70-300II. That was a good move for me. We'll find out for sure once I can start shooting outside again. Damn Indiana winters!

Agreed, I like machines, but right now I hate my snowblower.

Canon 70-300ii is excellent and much better than the 1st version. It is practically as sharp as the L version, check out lenstips test. Of course you are not gonna get L colors out of it but it is sufficiently sharp at all focal lengths, flare resistant, incredible IS that also works great for video, super fast AF even for continous video tracking. And all of it at a bargain price. It is the only telephoto lens I would consider for hybrid video/photo users.

Colors are easily manipulated and isn't one of my big concerns with glass. There is a reason that a majority of photo filters are color-based, it is easy to do about anything colorwise. Great shot, and very nice colors, btw! Surprised you were able to get close enough with 300mm to even get that shot, cropped or otherwise. They are pretty skittish birds.

Wow! You guys have convinced me - the 70-300 II it is!