Tamron 70-300 VC USD versus Canon 300 F4 L IS USM

I got hold of a few Tamron 70-300 VC units recently and decided to pit one of them against my Canon 300mm f4 L IS USM. As of note, out of the three VC lenses (all brand new), there was very high AF consistency between them and optically negligible differences.

Disclaimer: Yes, I know this isn't a "fair" test, but the L prime is the only thing I have currently that does 300mm. I wish I had a 70-200 f4 IS on-hand or the new 70-300 L IS. Just because the prime takes the win doesn't mean the Tamron sucks. It's actually pretty good. The bokeh, ultrasonic AF with FTM, 4-5 stop VC effectiveness, and overall imaging quality for a 70-300mm range consumer zoom is quite a deal at $400.

Well anyhow, here are some center crops and then some quick and dirty images taken with the 70-300 VC USD:

Tamron 300mm f5.6

Sorry, not a whole lot of interesting things around my home and immediate area ...

Thanks! I am on the fence on whether to upgrade my 55-250 to this guy. The USD looks nice, but the 55-250 is so small and the value has fallen so far I hate to sell it now.

Are you still posting tests like these on your pbase? I haven't seen any new ones for a while.

tkbslc wrote in post #11280130
Thanks! I am on the fence on whether to upgrade my 55-250 to this guy. The USD looks nice, but the 55-250 is so small and the value has fallen so far I hate to sell it now.

Are you still posting tests like these on your pbase? I haven't seen any new ones for a while.

Taylor, no my Pbase is still accessible but not active. I can't get around to paying the cost of Pbase when there are so many other less costly options. I'm just adding on using my Flickr for now.

I hear you about the 55-250 IS. It's quite a banger (for buck). But you're really talking about another level up here with the Tamron in build (metal mount, of course) and ring USD, etc.

good tests

yeah i guess that is about what it does then

a bit disappointing with the micro-contrast at 300mm despite all the hype (and better MTF charts than the 70-200 f/4 IS) but not bad macro contrast and very nice bokeh for a 70-300 and, under good lighting, better AF precision (and better VC) than the canon 70-300 IS non-L.

I just don't think i will be able to sell my 70-200 f/4 IS and keep the tamron.

Hmm the Canon looks a little soft at 5.6 , on the speed limit sign . Is it just the sign ?

I wouldn't mind picking up the Tamron , if I was going on a trip . But i'll keep my Sigma zoom

OT - Have you had a chance to play with the new Sigma 17-50mm OS lens yet ?

CountryBoy wrote in post #11282218
Hmm the Canon looks a little soft at 5.6 , on the speed limit sign . Is it just the sign ?

I wouldn't mind picking up the Tamron , if I was going on a trip . But i'll keep my Sigma zoom

OT - Have you had a chance to play with the new Sigma 17-50mm OS lens yet ?

CB, the 300 f4 IS copy I have is tremendous. It's the best I've owned, easily (out of the 8 or so copies I've used).

As for the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS, yes I currently have two copies in hand and one has a severe decentering while the other is excellent. I recently had 3 Tamron 17-50 VC copies (one massive decentering, the other 2 excellent). I also have had 3 copies of the 17-55 IS recently. One was noticeably softer than all these other lenses while the other two were solid performers. I've got crops galore from these lenses; just too many to put online really and not motivated to organize them

If I could pick the best and worst thing about each lens, it would be this:

Canon 1755: AF rocks, flimsy build (zoom and focus rings mostly).
Sigma 1750: Jack of all trades (AF/price/OS).
Tamron 1750: VC best, lack of ring AF.

IQ between the best copies of each are really nothing to talk about. I would be happy with any of them IQ-wise. If the Tamron had ring AF (like their new USD motor), it would be my pick.

Really non of the speed limit signs look all that great to me . Didn't know if it was the subject or my monitor , or my old eyes

Thanks for the info on the other lens .