70-200 F4L vs 70-300 VC

MTAtech wrote in post #11104722
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.)

It does f/5 at 200mm, on my tests above I ended up setting it to 209mm as it turned out and it did f/5 there, not to much later though it does shift to f/5.6, maybe by 215mm or so???

5Dmaniac wrote in post #11104718
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.

I appreciate that but I'm not so arrogant to think that someone may have more knowledge than I. As long as the cost is only a few more shots, what the heck.

To be sure, I'm not so naive to think that there will be harmonious agreement about the results.

Ok, I promised some head-to-head comparisons between the new Tamron 70-300mm VC and the Canon 70-200 f4 L (non-is). I've posted high resolution images on my own site because I wasn't satisfied with the resolution on photobucket. I took the images and made a composite in Photoshop so they can be viewed side-by-side.

My pre-judgment was that there wouldn't be anything noticeably different. I was wrong. The differences are quite noticeable. On every image the "L" looked better. Now, could this be due to the Tamron needing a micro adjustment? Maybe, but the darn 60D doesn't have micro adjustment!

Using a Canon 60D, here they are:
1) 70mm at f4
http://sunreaper.com/T​AMRON_TEST/70MM_F4.JPG

2) 70mm at f8
http://sunreaper.com/T​AMRON_TEST/70MM_F8.JPG

3) 2) 135mm at f4
http://sunreaper.com/T​AMRON_TEST/135MM_F4.JP​G

4) 2) 135mm at f8
http://sunreaper.com/T​AMRON_TEST/135MM_F8.JP​G

5) 200mm at f4
http://sunreaper.com/T​AMRON_TEST/200MM_F4.JP​G

6) 200mm at f8
http://sunreaper.com/T​AMRON_TEST/200MM_F8.JP​G

The "L" lens noticeably outperforms the 70-300mm. If one looks at the metal bars on the left, one can see them clearly sharper on the "L" lens and less so than on the 70-300mm. The spider web thread is also much more defined on the "L" lens.

Thanks a lot for your effort, that is helpful. Looks like the 70-300VC is very good for its price, but still not quite pro-grade.

Could I ask one more favor? I picture of the two lenses side by side so I can see their physical size difference? I have heard the 70-300VC is quite large.

tkbslc wrote in post #11109776
Could I ask one more favor? I picture of the two lenses side by side so I can see their physical size difference? I have heard the 70-300VC is quite large.

It's not that large. Here are the specs:

TAM 70-300 VC
LENGTH 142.7mm (5.6 in)
WEIGHT 765g (27.0 oz.)

Canon 70-200 f/4 L
LENGTH 172mm (6.8 in)
WEIGHT 705g (25 oz.)

I would have sworn that the Canon was heavier. I guess since it is longer it just feels that way.

so the AF is slower than the USM of the L...and the image quality is noticeably worse...i'm starting to wonder if it's even better than the 70-300IS...

also i do wonder in your shots if it's a tad over-exposed...

DreDaze wrote in post #11109955
so the AF is slower than the USM of the L...and the image quality is noticeably worse...i'm starting to wonder if it's even better than the 70-300IS...

also i do wonder in your shots if it's a tad over-exposed...

The AF pretty darn good, and no its not a L, but show me a L you can get for $400 new and then say that. Yes its better then the 70-300is, faster af, FTM inner focusing, and better IS/VC and still cheaper then a used canon.

DreDaze wrote in post #11109955
so the AF is slower than the USM of the L...

I wasn't commenting on the AF speed. I was commenting on what camera AF mode to use for these tests. I had a Tamron 70-300 Di (the one that sells for $160 on Amazon) and the AF was terrible -- it used to hunt like crazy and slow. The new one is very fast and does not hunt. The L is a little faster.

Although my tests show that the L is optically better, the Tamron isn't bad. Please note, I did no VC tests. The problem that I have with the f4 L is that hand-held shots are subject to blur. Considering that the Tamron has VC for those situations and costs $400, it's quite impressive. Remember, to get the optical quality of the f4L that I did test, with IS, is $1,349 from Canon. It's really not fair to think a lens can perform every bit as good as one costing 4X the price. However, its almost there.

It's been really hard to get a good read on the new Tamron, too many contradicting reviews . Many of the test left a lot to be desired , but it does look like a bargin for the price.

CountryBoy wrote in post #11113095
It's been really hard to get a good read on the new Tamron, too many contradicting reviews . Many of the test left a lot to be desired , but it does look like a bargain for the price.

I hope people don't misread my review/test. Just because a lens is not equal to an "L" lens doesn't mean it's not worthy. Moreover, some have pointed to the fact that the two lens may have been focused on different spots, skewing the conclusion.

I bought the lens and I'm keeping it (money where your mouth is argument.) My suggestion is try out the lens for yourself. Some sellers are hard-asses and won't take the product back if the box has been opened. Others, such as Crutchfield, are very liberal about returns.

MTAtech wrote in post #11113244
I hope people don't misread my review/test. Just because a lens is not equal to an "L" lens doesn't mean it's not worthy. Moreover, some have pointed to the fact that the two lens may have been focused on different spots, skewing the conclusion.

I bought the lens and I'm keeping it (money where your mouth is argument.) My suggestion is try out the lens for yourself. Some sellers are hard-asses and won't take the product back if the box has been opened. Others, such as Crutchfield, are very liberal about returns.

I wasn't pointing you out or anyone else , and I won't . So don't take offense .

CountryBoy wrote in post #11113271
I wasn't pointing you out or anyone else , and I won't . So don't take offense .

None taken. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood.

Just got the latest Pop Photo issue and they had a review of the Tamron. Apparently, it may not even beat the 55-250. They rated the 55-250 in the "Excellent" category at all tested focal lengths, but this new Tamron only got that rating at 70mm. 200 and 300mm were said to be very good and just good, respectively. They did rave about the VC (4 stops average among several testers) and the Auto Focus.

tkbslc wrote in post #11123023
Just got the latest Pop Photo issue and they had a review of the Tamron. Apparently, it may not even beat the 55-250. They rated the 55-250 in the "Excellent" category at all tested focal lengths, but this new Tamron only got that rating at 70mm. 200 and 300mm were said to be very good and just good, respectively. They did rave about the VC (4 stops average among several testers) and the Auto Focus.

Well, their last test was on the 15,85, which they said was crappy at wide angle (I think) and worse than 17-85..! So, I don't really trust their testing methods at all. Go check the 15-85 test if you like to see for yourself. The test is on their website.

I had canon 70-300 IS and very sharp lens, esp. on the wide end. but my Tamron 70-300 VC is just as sharp and sharper at the longer end. very good price for the money. seems to be built better than the canon's too (no sagging so far).