After reading goodness knows how many reviews, both professional and end-user, of both the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and the Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di VC USD lens, I 'took the plunge' and today part exchanged my Canon 75-300 f.4-5.6 USM Mk III for the Tamron.
Pretty much all of the comparison reviews rated the optics as being on a par, or putting the Tamron slightly ahead.
I should add that I did consider both the Canon L and DO versions of the 70-300, but decided that being a lens that I would only use occassionaly, and not an every day 'walk-about' lens, it didn't justify the extra cost. This is something that may or may not change in the future.
The Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM's optical line-up comprises 15 elements in 10 groups, and the Tamron 17 elements in 12 groups.
The big difference when I handled both the Canon and the Tamron in the shop, was the build quality. In this respect the Tamron looked, handled, and felt far superior. This is reflected in the weight, the Canon being 630g against the Tamron's 765g, making it 135g heavier than the Canon.
Apart from the IS, the Canon felt much like my old 75-300 USM lens, and the build quality of this never really impressed me, although it did it's job, and never failed.
The AF on the Tamron is noticably faster and quieter than the Canon.
I didn't really get the chance to compare the IS of the lenses at the shop, as it was pouring with rain outside, and the lighting in the shop wasn't that good.
Although late in the day, and very overcast, I quickly tested the Tamron when I got home, pushing it to 300mm, and I have to say the IS, or VC as Tamron call it, was very effective.
I'm sure that the Canon IS would have been equally good, but this I won't now know.
Other plus points for the Tamron are a non-rotating front lens, lens hood included, and a 5 year warrantee.
This particular Tamron lens is part of Tamron's pro collection, although I wouldn't put it in the same league as Canon's L series, but then there is a huge price difference of course.
Comparing the optics of my old Canon 75-300 USM Mk III, the Tamron seems significantly better. Judging by the reviews, the optics in the later Canon 70-300 IS USM, must have been improved over the earlier 75-300.
Early days yet, but my initial impressions are very favourable, and the Tamron does seem to offer a very good 'bang for the buck'.
Hopefully, it won't disappoint when 'used in anger'.
Dave
Pretty much all of the comparison reviews rated the optics as being on a par, or putting the Tamron slightly ahead.
I should add that I did consider both the Canon L and DO versions of the 70-300, but decided that being a lens that I would only use occassionaly, and not an every day 'walk-about' lens, it didn't justify the extra cost. This is something that may or may not change in the future.
The Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM's optical line-up comprises 15 elements in 10 groups, and the Tamron 17 elements in 12 groups.
The big difference when I handled both the Canon and the Tamron in the shop, was the build quality. In this respect the Tamron looked, handled, and felt far superior. This is reflected in the weight, the Canon being 630g against the Tamron's 765g, making it 135g heavier than the Canon.
Apart from the IS, the Canon felt much like my old 75-300 USM lens, and the build quality of this never really impressed me, although it did it's job, and never failed.
The AF on the Tamron is noticably faster and quieter than the Canon.
I didn't really get the chance to compare the IS of the lenses at the shop, as it was pouring with rain outside, and the lighting in the shop wasn't that good.
Although late in the day, and very overcast, I quickly tested the Tamron when I got home, pushing it to 300mm, and I have to say the IS, or VC as Tamron call it, was very effective.
I'm sure that the Canon IS would have been equally good, but this I won't now know.
Other plus points for the Tamron are a non-rotating front lens, lens hood included, and a 5 year warrantee.
This particular Tamron lens is part of Tamron's pro collection, although I wouldn't put it in the same league as Canon's L series, but then there is a huge price difference of course.
Comparing the optics of my old Canon 75-300 USM Mk III, the Tamron seems significantly better. Judging by the reviews, the optics in the later Canon 70-300 IS USM, must have been improved over the earlier 75-300.
Early days yet, but my initial impressions are very favourable, and the Tamron does seem to offer a very good 'bang for the buck'.
Hopefully, it won't disappoint when 'used in anger'.
Dave
Comment