70-200 F4L vs 70-300 VC

Yeah, it's almost impossible to make everyone happy...

Combatmedic870 wrote in post #11102253
Shoot them both at F8...diffraction will affect the images at F11.

Argghh..... there's no point in comparing the lenses at f/8 or f/11... The 70-200/4 is doing well at f/4 and the Tamron SP 70-300 should be compared to it at wide open apertures. The reasonable use for a lens like this (either one of them) is at max aperture. f/8 is going to be pretty good with most lenses, that's not where the differences show.

Put a tc on the 70-200mm f/4 , shoot it wide open and compare it to the Tamron wide open .

Also to remember when comparing: the focus should be carefully matched with live view, with lenses on tripod. Or at the least, the AF has to be tested and adjusted with micro AF adjustment (for real life test shots - birds, etc). It makes no sense to compare two lenses, if you can't be sure that the point of focus is the same for the shots of both lenses.

arn wrote in post #11103348
Argghh..... there's no point in comparing the lenses at f/8 or f/11... The 70-200/4 is doing well at f/4 and the Tamron SP 70-300 should be compared to it at wide open apertures.

True, especially for slow-aperture lenses like this one (let's face it: If you buy a slow-aperture lens, you don't want to be forced to stop it down even further just to get good image quality).

But testing stopped-down is important as well, to see how it performs in optimal conditions (which you happen to have from time to time when shooting outdoors).

tkbslc wrote in post #11100085
So now that we have seen what the Tamron 70-300 VC can do, does anyone think it is a better choice than the 70-200 F4L in this price category? Mainly I want a smaller than a 70-200 f2.8 upgrade to my 55-250 with faster AF for under $700. 70-200 gives me f4 at 200mm, 70-300VC gives me great stabilization at an extra 100mm of reach for $200 less.

I already posted 70-200 f/4 IS vs. tamron 70-300 VC shots on the main thread.

70-200 f/4 IS definitely has better micro-contrast in the center and it even does about the same at 280mm (with TC) as the tamron, it has faster AF, f/4 at 200mm; didn't compare edges yet.

that said it also costs 3x as much and popping a TC on and off is a pain (i didn't compare yet how the 70-200+TC does in comparison over the entire range)

tkbslc wrote in post #11102524
All I would need to see is shots at 70, 135, 200 and 300 at wide open and f8. Would also like some general feeling on AF speed and accuracy, but those are tough to test scientifically.

early general feeling (canon200 = 70-200 f/4 IS canon300=70-300 IS):

much better precision than the canon300 but not quite as good as the canon200

faster than the canon300 but not quite as fast as the canon200 (and noticeably slower when need to make large jumps in focusing distance)

arn wrote in post #11103348
Argghh..... there's no point in comparing the lenses at f/8 or f/11... The 70-200/4 is doing well at f/4 and the Tamron SP 70-300 should be compared to it at wide open apertures. The reasonable use for a lens like this (either one of them) is at max aperture. f/8 is going to be pretty good with most lenses, that's not where the differences show.

Differences show at f/8 a lot more than you'd think.
It's a fallacy that all lenses perform just about the same by f/8.

wombatHorror wrote in post #11103950
early general feeling (canon200 = 70-200 f/4 IS canon300=70-300 IS):

much better precision than the canon300 but not quite as good as the canon200

faster than the canon300 but not quite as fast as the canon200 (and noticeably slower when need to make large jumps in focusing distance)

you have the old 70-300 IS? so you think this is better than that all around?

since it seems everyone has forgotten about and abandoned the main thread for this lens I will re-post it here:

These were only done somewhat carefully, but since there is so much cry out for image comparisons I'll post it anyway:

Tamron 70-300 VC USD
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS (+1.4x TC II at times)
Canon 7D
100% crops, fully processed in ACR:

200mm canon f/4:

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

wombatHorror wrote in post #11104006
since it seems everyone has forgotten about and abandoned the main thread for this lens I will re-post it here:

This thread is asking for comparisons with the f4 non-IS. Thanks for your input, though.

wombatHorror wrote in post #11103955
Differences show at f/8 a lot more than you'd think.
It's a fallacy that all lenses perform just about the same by f/8.

I didn't say they perform the same. I said that that's not where the differences show. They show more at wide open and that's where it counts more.

Every single time someone offers to do a comparison we get into this pissing contest over how to test a lens. Why don't we let the person doing the test decide what is important to them and then publish their results. We will never, ever satisfy everyone out there.

arn wrote in post #11104156
I didn't say they perform the same. I said that that's not where the differences show. They show more at wide open and that's where it counts more.

Ok, ok, when I do my shots I'll make sure to include wide open ones too. Anything too halt bickering.

To recap:

Test each lens as follows:
1) Sharpness Test on same subject - three images; 70mm, ~135mm, 200mm. Camera mounted on tripod at f/8. The same at f/4 and f/4.5 for each of the cameras mins.

2) Hand-held test at 1/30 sec. at 200mm. This tests the advantage of Tamron's VC compared to Canon's lower f/4 (at 200mm, the Tam is likely to be f/5.6 min.)

Subjective tests: Speed at AF; feel; etc.

arn wrote in post #11104156
I didn't say they perform the same. I said that that's not where the differences show. They show more at wide open and that's where it counts more.

That depends. Neither a 24-105 or 24 1.4 II is great wide open and if you shoot landscapes that doesn't even matter, but there is a huge difference between the two at the critical f/8-f/11 on FF between those so it depends what counts.

Also, the tamron wide open at f/5 isn't that different from the canon wide open at f/4 (not a fair test anyway) but make them both f/5 OR make then both f/7.1 and then difference is actually larger.