Tamron 70-300 USD and Sigma 100-300 f4 Compared w/pics

I just took delivery of my new Tamron 70-300 today and decided to do some test shots with it and my Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG.

I cant say this is a scientific test because the lighting was changing pretty quickly after work today and in my haste to race against the light, I may have made some oversights. But, it does give a decent idea of how the lens performs.

All shots were from a tripod in Av at the apertures indicated. I had to jump from ISO 100 to 400 for the last few shots to avoid shake from the slight breeze since the light was failing. These were shot in RAW, all ACR settings neutral, converted to JPEG and exported to web.

Anyway, here it goes:

Tamron @ 300mm f5.6 (wide open)

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Next up are shots at 100mm

Tamron @ 100mm f4.5

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Finally, I slapped on the 1.4x TC for the fun of it and took a shot at 300mm:

Tamron

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

So, after having done my comparisons, there arent any huge surprises:

-The IQ of the new Tamron cant quite compare to the Sigma, especially when a TC is involved. PP of images from either naked lens would probably render the images indistinguishable from one another for most.
-Originally, I thought the AF rivaled that of the Sigma and my Canon 15-85 but thats not quite the case. Its fast enough for most purposes, but it cant quite match the other two mentioned.
-The AF on my copy is accurate in good light and even the failing light outside. I have yet to test it in what we would call poor light.
-The VC on this lens is simply amazing. It takes a split second to wind up, and when it does, the image is literally frozen in your viewfinder. Im able to get useable shots at 300mm at 1/90 and 1/60.
-Build is good, but not great. Its not going to fall apart on you and could take some bumps, but its not sealed and it doesnt have that smooth "L" feel some of us have grown used to.

Its a lens well worth its price tag and more. Im a landscape photographer and a smaller package with great VC may be enough to make me dump my trusty 100-300. Taking it out for an actually photo shoot instead of a bunch of dumb tests will be my real test.

Thanks everyone!

Of course no new lens test is complete without one of the dog...

At the long end the Sigma looks a bit sharper, the Tamron does seem to have a little more contrast though. Thanks for the sample pics.

It will be interesting to see direct comparisons between the Tamron and the new Canon. I'm sure the Canon will be much better, but the Tamron the "poor mans" version (and probably much better value for money). New lenses are a no-go for me at the moment either way unfortunately.

To be honest , on the tree shots I have no clue what you where focusing on .

But I love the dog shot . That's really good for those settings . Was that one handheld ? I think the sigma would produce a more pleasing background blur. But that's a good shot .

To me, the Tamron looks much better at 300/5.6 than the Sigma; but there's more detail in the 100mm shots with the Sigma and you're right, it pretty much crushes the Tamron with the TC involved.

I will give Tamron this, though, those folks know how to make an IS system. I'd love to see the newest system works. I would guess you could throw the camera at your subject and still get a sharp shot once it's engaged

CountryBoy wrote in post #11086432
To be honest , on the tree shots I have no clue what you where focusing on .

But I love the dog shot . That's really good for those settings . Was that one handheld ? I think the sigma would produce a more pleasing background blur. But that's a good shot .

Yah, the dog was handheld at 300mm 1/90 with the VC going. I went a little crazy with the contrast on that one in PP, but you get the idea.

Youre right about the focus point, there isnt much to shoot around my house at 300mm that wont have a bunch of trees in it so I figured if I manually focused as well as I could at least something would be in focus.

If I missed it, another section of trees would be sharp. I guess I wasnt testing the AF here, just sharpness OOC and it didnt need to be exactly the same point as long as something in the frame was in focus. I tried to make it the same spot, but the wind made it tough to nail the exact same spot in 10x zoom in live view.

MNUplander wrote in post #11086483
Yah, the dog was handheld at 300mm 1/90 with the VC going. I went a little crazy with the contrast on that one in PP, but you get the idea.

Youre right about the focus point, there isnt much to shoot around my house at 300mm that wont have a bunch of trees in it so I figured if I manually focused as well as I could at least something would be in focus.

If I missed it, another section of trees would be sharp. I guess I wasnt testing the AF here, just sharpness OOC and it didnt need to be exactly the same point as long as something in the frame was in focus. I tried to make it the same spot, but the wind made it tough to nail the exact same spot in 10x zoom in live view.

this is why i havent posted photos yet despite all the requests

proper samples are time consuming and tricky

you need exactly matched lighting, no clouds going in and out, no late in the day and sun rapidly changing angle in a meaningful way, best of 5 manually or contrast based AF shots, etc. and then you need to make resized versions and clip crops and upload, etc.

i will do it eventually though

MNUplander wrote in post #11086483
Yah, the dog was handheld at 300mm 1/90 with the VC going. I went a little crazy with the contrast on that one in PP, but you get the idea.

Youre right about the focus point, there isnt much to shoot around my house at 300mm that wont have a bunch of trees in it so I figured if I manually focused as well as I could at least something would be in focus.

If I missed it, another section of trees would be sharp. I guess I wasnt testing the AF here, just sharpness OOC and it didnt need to be exactly the same point as long as something in the frame was in focus. I tried to make it the same spot, but the wind made it tough to nail the exact same spot in 10x zoom in live view.

I think the lens is a bargin for it's price !

Your effort here is to be commended. However, your choice of subjects makes it hard to discern what exactly is being looked at. At 300mm, DOF is a serious issue and you've got to be pin-point with focus.

That said, the Tamron seems to be a winner (not only here but from what I've seen/heard around the web). Colors and sharpness look pretty darn good. At $400 (after rebate) it's quite a deal to have this kind of optic mated to VC and USD.

It would be nice to see this lens compared to the Sigma 70-300 OS and the new Canon 70-300 L IS.

Nice effort here. Now go out and enjoy this little gem.

LightRules wrote in post #11086849
It would be nice to see this lens compared to the Sigma 70-300 OS and the new Canon 70-300 L IS.

I actually would like to see how it compares to the old Canon 70-300 IS non-L...

Thanks for the samples!
The focus does indeed seem to be a little off between the shots, but overall I'd say the sharpness looks pretty much equal between lenses at 300mm. Tamron appears to have better contrast, though and some slight CA.

HyperYagami wrote in post #11087156
I actually would like to see how it compares to the old Canon 70-300 IS non-L...

Looks like the Tamron would be a little sharper at the long end, and will have better AF too.

As a 70-300 IS owner that hurts a little