70-200 F4L vs 70-300 VC

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 really don't trust their testing methods at all. Go check the 15-85 test if you like to see for yourself.

I was a bit skeptical when I looked up their 55-250 IS review. I mean it is a marvel of a lens at its price point, but if it is "excellent" at all focal lengths, then what would they rate an actually excellent lens like the 70-200 F4 IS, or 135L or even a basic the 50mm f1.4. All those absolutely crush the 55-250.

They did say it was "average for it's class" and they mentioned the Sigma 70-300 OS, Canon 70-300 IS and NIkkor 70-300 VR. So it is likely in that same league.

tkbslc wrote in post #11123236
I was a bit skeptical when I looked up their 55-250 IS review. I mean it is a marvel of a lens at its price point, but if it is "excellent" at all focal lengths, then what would they rate an actually excellent lens like the 70-200 F4 IS, or 135L or even a basic the 50mm f1.4. All those absolutely crush the 55-250.

They did say it was "average for it's class" and they mentioned the Sigma 70-300 OS, Canon 70-300 IS and NIkkor 70-300 VR. So it is likely in that same league.

Would be great to see a review from SLRgear or Photozone, but I don't think that will happen for some time. Ps. using a mobile phone for writing messages on the forum makes some interesting quirks happen at times... I was was pretty sure I was editing my message, but double posted instead.

I'm skeptical of any review that only provides the conclusion (i.e. "excellent, good") instead of the criteria and methodology that lead to the conclusion. I also like to see test shots.

MTAtech wrote in post #11108675
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!

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.

The unfortunate fact here is that you are comparing out-of-focus shots from one lens with in-focus shots from another lens. I don't think I need to explain to anyone that this is utterly useless and has nothing to do with optical performance.

In every single one of your shots, the Tamron 70-300 was clearly front-focused. This is most obviously seen from the 70mm shots, where the left side of the fence closer to the camera is very sharp with Tamron and blurry with the Canon L lens. The other shots also show that none of the images made with the Tamron are in focus.

It's of course a bad thing that a lens is consistently front-focusing, but in this comparison, focus in each of those shots should have been set manually and fine-tuned via the Live View magnification feature to make any sense at all.

tannukas wrote in post #11152184
The unfortunate fact here is that you are comparing out-of-focus shots from one lens with in-focus shots from another lens. I don't think I need to explain to anyone that this is utterly useless and has nothing to do with optical performance.

In every single one of your shots, the Tamron 70-300 was clearly front-focused. This is most obviously seen from the 70mm shots, where the left side of the fence closer to the camera is very sharp with Tamron and blurry with the Canon L lens. The other shots also show that none of the images made with the Tamron are in focus.

It's of course a bad thing that a lens is consistently front-focusing, but in this comparison, focus in each of those shots should have been set manually and fine-tuned via the Live View magnification feature to make any sense at all.

I realize that and shot some new ones using manual focus and live view. I haven't had time to evaluate them.

Too bad this isn't 10 years ago when I had 20/13 vision and I could be confident in my judgment of what's in-focus.

crap, why did I run across this page. D:

Well i'm completely torn between these 2 lenses how do you feel now almost 2 years on?