Canon 70-300 IS or Tamron 70-300 VC

Last few days visited a wild life sanctuary and photographed extensively using my Sigma18-200 (mostly used at 200mm focal range). Photograhs after some sharpenning & cropping with Canon supplied software, have come out accepatable / good.

I am thinking of upgrading to some better quality optics with following specs
1. Should also be good for portraits (only as stand by to Canon 50F1.4)
2. Preferably can take close up shots of rose/ flower sized items (say ~1:3 macro)
3. Basic use will be hand held photography outdoors (During my recent trip, clicked mostly at 200 mm and then cropped a number of them. Therefore I assume that some additional focal length, say upto 250 or 300mm would be good)
4. Around 600-700 USD

Canon 70-300 IS version is rated well in some reports. Tamron also has come out with VC version of this focal range. Kindly help me to figure out following
1. Is Tamron comparable to Canon in 150-300 focal range. Kindly post photographs using two lenses.
2. Is canon 70-300 better than canon 55-250 (I assume so)
3. Canon 70-200 F4 (non IS) is similarly priced. If I can get 7 /10 good shots, hand holding and at 200mm, I wont miss IS.
4. I am inclined towards primes. If I buy one of the primes, say 100 or 135 or 150 and then use it in outdoor situations (say wild life sanctuary) and crop the pictures to get 200 mm equivalent object. Will the result be better than picture taken with one of above zoom lens, set at 200mm

Which lens will you recommend (Being a hobyist, intend sticking to APS-C format).

Thanks in advance.

I had the 55-250mm IS it was really sharp, contrast and colors were something to be desired... I picked up a Canon 70-300mm IS USM.... better all around colors and contrast were better, focus was fast and accurate and the build was a lot better sharpness was about the same but like i said before the 55-250 was pretty sharp imo... I picked up a canon 70-200mm f/4L it was what i expected, it was sharp, colors were great as well as contrast... I evaluated all lenses and kept the most versatile one i thought in my mind which was the Canon 70-300mm IS.... colors/contrast were very close to the L and blew the 55-250mm out of the water... focus was quick on the L but the 70-300 was no slouch.... the 70-300 @200mm was at f/5 and with IS was imo better than canon 70-200L at f/4

It's hard to grasp exactly what you want to use it for. Even wild life can vary, you mention at sanctuaries and in my experience how close you can get and therefore focal length you need will be dictated by the sanctuary as well as the animals.

If you really like flower shots and can cope with cropping a touch then I'd be inclined to recommend considering the Sigma 150mm F/2.8. It is a macro lens but is great for other duties, but I think it's normally too long for portraits. You could either crop or throw a Kenko 1.4x TC on for a 210mm F/4 lens. AF is not super quick though, being a macro lens, but it at least has a limited switch.

If you want a zoom then the 70-300 IS is a nice lens. I own the Canon, but the Tamron sample shots I've seen would make me lean that way to be honest.

Well well -- a decision in favour of 'IS' feature over 'L' lens. What I have understood is that sharpness, contrast & colors are comparable in two lenses, I should go for 'IS' & additional 100 mm focal length.

phreeky wrote in post #11244796
It's hard to grasp exactly what you want to use it for. Even wild life can vary, you mention at sanctuaries and in my experience how close you can get and therefore focal length you need will be dictated by the sanctuary as well as the animals.
If you really like flower shots and can cope with cropping a touch then I'd be inclined to recommend considering the Sigma 150mm F/2.8. It is a macro lens but is great for other duties, but I think it's normally too long for portraits. You could either crop or throw a Kenko 1.4x TC on for a 210mm F/4 lens. AF is not super quick though, being a macro lens, but it at least has a limited switch.
If you want a zoom then the 70-300 IS is a nice lens. I own the Canon, but the Tamron sample shots I've seen would make me lean that way to be honest.

Large number of pictures are of animals / birds 50-100 meters away. Some sample pictures from trip for furthering the discussion. Can Sigma 150 be used for these shots.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

One more

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Yes, sort of. I don't think it's the right option for the bird in flight shot, for birds you'll still be focal length limited well past 150mm in most cases.

I think you should try and estimate the focal length you want based on your previous shots. One of the biggest mistakes is using a focal length that is too short and heavily cropping it - generally the photos wont look very good. An average 500mm will generally be MUCH better than a 200mm lens cropped to match.

Perhaps look into options such as the Sigma 150-500.

Thanks. Sigma 150-500 is too long on shorter side making it single purpose lens. Therefore I do wish to have 70-100 mm range in it to enable other general purpose usages. As for outdoor, with my last experience, I feel that 150-300 mm range will cover my requirements.

Therefore my original question-- should I buy Canon 70-300IS or Tamron 70-300 VC or Canon70-200F4 (In mail above GOTAUDI has given a view to why he chose 'IS+100mm' over 'L', I tend to agree - so choice comes down between Canon & Tamron or is there any other option)

Tamron is a bit of a gamble that you may be willing to take - hasn't been out long, hasn't built up much of a reputation.

70-300 IS versus 70-200 is simply a matter of the longer zoom with IS versus the L-built shorter zoom without IS that has a larger aperture at 200mm. Only a decision you can make I think.

I've yet to see a Tamron lens that can compete with Canon in any area except for price.

Jon_Doh wrote in post #11245548
I've yet to see a Tamron lens that can compete with Canon in any area except for price.

tamron 17-50

(and ignoring contrast/color, tamron 28-75, noticeably sharper than 24-105L)