Canon vs Sigma vs Tamron - Which 70-300mm would you choose?

In my quest to possibly upgrade my go-to telephoto lens right now (55-250 IS), I am considering the 70-300mm route. However, I can't decide which lens I would choose based on the reviews I've seen. All of them seem to have great reviews. However, I'd like to have you all's feedback on your personal experiences with any of the lenses to help me make a decision if the time comes.

Fligi7 wrote in post #11390526
In my quest to possibly upgrade my go-to telephoto lens right now (55-250 IS), I am considering the 70-300mm route. However, I can't decide which lens I would choose based on the reviews I've seen. All of them seem to have great reviews. However, I'd like to have you all's feedback on your personal experiences with any of the lenses to help me make a decision if the time comes.

What are you looking for one of the 70-300 lenses to do for you that the 55-250 is lacking? Hard to beat its bang for buck.

What are your needs in going to a 70-300?

I don't know about canon or sigma, but my copy of the Tamron is pretty good.
comparing to 55-250:
Better IQ, Butter Build, USD, IF, FTM(useless for me though), More zoom(arguably), lens hood(alright that's stretching it).

But I've heard ppl complain about bad copies so... i donno

Chenger wrote in post #11390620
I don't know about canon or sigma, but my copy of the Tamron is pretty good.
comparing to 55-250:
Better IQ, Butter Build, USD, IF, FTM(useless for me though), More zoom(arguably), lens hood(alright that's stretching it).

But I've heard ppl complain about bad copies so... i donno

+1

I've recently upgraded from the 55-250 to the Tamron 70-300 and the colors on my pictures seem more vibrant. The VC/IS is superior as well IMO.

Exactly, none of the 3 choices.

I've got the Tamron 70-300 VC and I'm very happy with it. Cheaper than the Canon and better in some ways. I don't think the Sigma comes close to either the Canon or the Tamron.

LightRules wrote in post #11390589
What are you looking for one of the 70-300 lenses to do for you that the 55-250 is lacking? Hard to beat its bang for buck.

What are your needs in going to a 70-300?

Don't get me wrong, I love that lens. The only reason I'd be looking to upgrade is if I upgraded my walk-around lens from the 18-55 to the 15-85 (which I'm considering doing), in which case I'd have overlapping 55-85 and no need for that area. So, at that rate, I wanted opinions on the 70-300mm options and if I heard an overwhelming response to one being not only better than the rest, and also better than the 55-250, then I'd have an easy time making that decision to transition.

Essentially, I'm not particularly looking to go one way or the other, but want to be informed in case the previously described situation occurs.

I loved my 55-250 as well. The main reason I upgraded is that I was able to return the Canon to Costco for a full refund (I love Costco), and the Tamron had a 50 rebate + Newegg was running a 10% off promotion for Tamron lenses bringing to the total cost to 350 dollars. So in essence, I only paid 75 dollars for the lens.

I don't think anything less than the 70-200 F4L IS is a big upgrade from the 55-250, IQ wise. Though that might have changed with the 70-300 tamron.

None of the choices, go with a Canon 70-200L. Get the version based on your needs (non-IS vs IS...f/2.8 vs f/4).

i had a 55-250 and i found it pretty slow....i too am looking at the Canon 70-300 IS and Tamron 70-300 VC. I've seen some good prices on used the Canon.

Fligi7 wrote in post #11390730
Don't get me wrong, I love that lens. The only reason I'd be looking to upgrade is if I upgraded my walk-around lens from the 18-55 to the 15-85 (which I'm considering doing), in which case I'd have overlapping 55-85 and no need for that area.

Not a wise thing to base your decision on. Nothing wrong with a bit of overlap. What I recommend you do is base your lens decisions on a single lens serving a particular purpose (or a few). For example you might like to photograph your kids playing in the yard and 55-150mm might be the ideal range that the 55-250 would do well at, yet neither the 15-85 nor 70-300 can do (and you wont want to keep swapping lenses).

If it's IQ, AF, build, or just because you feel you deserve to spend some money on yourself, then by all means consider your options. Everyone needs to treat themselves from time to time

I am debating the same. I find that 90% of my shots with the 55-250 are taken at 250, so that extra 50 mm will come in handy for me. I'd also like to be able to use a teleconverter and get even farther reach. My mother in law is going to buy the 55-250 from me. So far I am just barely leaning towards the Tamron because of full time manual focus. I wish there were more reviews of it out there.

i'd keep saving towards a bigger upgrade...either the 70-200L, 100-400L, sigma 150-500mm...or one of the longer primes...

you really aren't gaining much by going with one of the 70-300mm...the sigma is probably worse than your 55-250mm...the canon is slightly better...but certainly not worth double the price...and the tamron i don't know about...but an extra 50mm isn't really going to blow your socks off in terms of more reach...

Janie wrote in post #11396972
I am debating the same. I find that 90% of my shots with the 55-250 are taken at 250, so that extra 50 mm will come in handy for me.

true but maybe what you are focusing on really requires 400mm (wildlife?)
It may be smarter to wait and get a longer focal length lens, something longer than 300mm