Tamron 70-300 VC Experiences & Opinions

[barnaby_harding1]

<p>Hi!<br>

Okay, I posted something a while ago about the Canon 70-300 IS, and the Tamron was thrown into the mix and it has proved to be very interesting, to the point where I currently favour the Tamron over the Canon 70-300IS and the Canon 70-200 F4 L (mostly for the extra reach - the results look amazing).</p>

<p>SO - what are people's opinions and experiences of the Tamron? Can you compare to your own experiences of either of the Canon lenses? Any glitches or things to watch, as I know Tamron has some QA issues with batches from time to time.</p>

<p>Open the floodgates and let your knowledge and wisdom pour down on me!</p>

[ljwest]

<p>If you're talking about the Tamron SP 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di VC USM (there's at least one older 70-300), I've had it several months, and have been very happy with it. For the price (currently about $400 after rebate), it's hard to beat. About all I can say is that it is a bit slow to focus, but I'm comparing it to the lightweight "kit" lens (EF-S 18-135mm) and my recently purchased Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (bought refurbished from Canon). If your camera can do AF microadjustment by lens, as my 7D can, definitely profile your lens. I found that a -5 setting on mine brings the AF spot on. BTW, I also had to do this with the 100-400, but that was a +5 adjustment...</p>

<p>Also, the AF and IS switches are not as protected as Canon's usually are, and are easily switched inadvertently. Usually, for me, that means I get no AT or IS when I'm expecting it!</p>

<p>It is a handy size, fits in my jacket pockets with the hood reversed & caps on, works well for what I do with it, which has been carrying it around in my coat pocket to various wildlife refuges. Sure, most any Canon "L" lens will beat it optically, but at $400, you're not getting too many "L" lenses, and none that go out to 300mm!</p>

<p>I like it a lot, and would still be using it a lot if I hadn't bought the 100-400. I needed more reach for bird photography, and the 100-400 was an economical first step. I may yet bring in to Sweden & Finland this summer, as I'm wanting to pack light, and the 100-400 is a beast at 3 lbs! Just debating over whether I'd miss the extra 100mm reach!</p>

<p>One thing I'd have liked to see is at least the provision for a tripod collar. The lens is light enough, and the VC (vibration compensation, IS in Canon terms) works well enough, but the added versatility would be nice.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>The new Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 VC Di is an excellent lens. It's competes well with the Canon 70-300IS, maybe even beating it at the edges of the frame (especially on full frame). Can't beat the price either, plus it comes with a hood.</p>

<p>In the field I've had no problems with it. It's sharp, AF is good and the IS (VC) system works well. The Canon lens is also good of course, but it's about $100 more expensive.</p>

<p>I reviewed the Tamron here - <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_70-300_vc_review.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_70-300_vc_review.html</a></p>

<p>Overall You can't beat it in terms of bang for the buck. It's under $400 after the $50 mail in rebate.</p>

[bill_morrow1]

<p>My response is more of a question. I have the 18-270 Tamron, and find it a great lens--especially<br>

if you're traveling and can't take everything in the closet. I like the low end availabilty on a 7D,<br>

but I was wondering about the sharpness of the overlapping areas...i.e. 70 to 270 comparitively.</p>

 

[model mayhem gallery]

I have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and in my opinion it is equal in sharpness to the Canon 24-70 f2.8L. I definitely looked

at 70-300 f4 -5.6 VC however was turned off by the minimum focus distance which is too far for the type of indoor

shooting I do. However, if I where doing outdoors stuff birds etc. I would get this over the comparable Canon lens any

day. Tamron makes great DI lenses good cost and warranty.

[colin carron]

<p>I don't have the Tamron but I have had the canon 70-300 IS for some time. The reviews seem to indicate the two lenses are fairly equal in performance with one being ahead in one area and the other being ahead in another. I would expect resale value of the Canon to hold up a little better as in my experience third party lenses are less saleable than the equivalent from the system manufacturers.</p>

<p>I've had such a lot of fun with the canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS that I occasionally think about upgrading to the 'L' version. Then I look at the price, my eyes start watering and I leave it as it is.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>Overall You can't beat it in terms of bang for the buck.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>