Which telephoto lens????? Canon V Tamron

B

Barlow

Messages
2
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm just upgrading all my camera equipment and would like some advise on which telephoto lens to go for. Have narrowed it down to three options. It's main use would be my kids and wildlife (same thing really!!). My camera is a Canon 70D.

1) Cannon 70-200 L (non IS) f4
Realise this is the best in terms of image quality but would need to get 2nd hand as out of my price range. E-bay between £350-£375

2) Cannon 70-300 USM IS f4-5.6
Logical cheaper alternative with good reviews, extra length and IS a big plus. Currently Amazon sell for £309

3) Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 DI VC
Haven't ever owned anything but cannon but seen some really good reviews on this lens. Would love to hear from anyone that owns/experienced this. Currently Amazon sell for £293

Currently using a Cannon 75-300 USM II so any of the above lenses will be a big upgrade. I think the price of both the cannon (non L) and Tamron seems very good and I would prefer having a lens that goes to 300mm. IS and VC is also a plus. Thanks in advance for any advise.
 
This question was likely discussed many times already. For me, I picked the Tamron due to this reasons:
- up to 300mm
- full time MF
- great VC
- long warranty

The non-L Canon and the Tamron are very close with perhaps a tiny edge toward Tamron. I think you will be satisfied with either one. The Canon L will give better IQ, but sacrifices focal length and IS.

Note that the Tamron is not without downsides. The USD AF is reasonably fast and quiet, but it sometimes hunts a lot, and sometimes not always accurate. CA is also noticeable when pixel peep, compared to Canon 400L. The buttons on the lens are quite loose, and I accidentally switch them all the time when carrying it on shoulder strap, which is very annoying.

Despite those issues, the IQ is very good, and it is my main telephoto lens when I don't want to carry heavier lens.
 
I have the Tamron and am happy with it for the price - I don't use Canon though so no idea how those other lenses compare - I have heard nothing but good things about the L lens though and would not expect the Tamron to match that. MPB had a few used Tamron SP USD 70-300 (Canon fit) for around £200 I think by the way if you want to save a few ££, although of course buying new gets you the full 5 year warranty if it's UK stock (Wex is £289 new).

There is a review of the lens here, including some wildlife use:
http://www.lawrencephotographic.com...#Tamron_70-300mm_f4/f5.6_SP_Di_USD_Zoom_Lens_

Also see this earlier thread re the Tamron: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=511582
 
Last edited:
I've owned 1 & 3 and a friend had 2. If it's your only long lens, I'd suggest the Tamron. The Canon 70-200 may be just a tad better but has limited range and no IS. The Canon 70-300 is just a little softer at the long end, but the Tamron maintains better colour/contrast (the kind that you can't really bring back in post processing) and has a better focusing system.
 
Can't comment on the Canon 70-300 4-5.6, but i had the Tamron for a while then 'upgraded' it for the Canon f4L. If anyone went from the f4L to the Tamron they'd be mad!
What's the point of extra range if the IQ is poor?
 
The bottom line is that you get what you pay for. There can be exceptions but in the world of lenses I think they are rare.

It's really all about what you can afford or not. For those who can't stretch to the costs of new Canon L IS etc lenses, then Tamron/Sigma doubtless offer great value for the less money.

But IF you have the money available and love your photography enough, then Canon lenses are a no-brainer.

Another option is to find a good condition previously-loved Canon lens but with a L and IS spec it might still be beyond your budget.
 
I have a Tamron 70-300VC and have used it with my 7D. The VC is very effective, the build quailty is good and the images throughout the range are good as well. It's definitely a good buy for under £300. Most of the reviews I read had it edging the Canon 70-300IS, and the results I've had don't give me any reason to doubt them.

This was taken last year (I've mainly done macro this year so hardly used it) at 300mm, wide open (f 5.6) handheld at 1/250 as per the exif.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartdelaney/10178811375/

This one was at 183mm, f5 and 1/30th sec. Again handheld with VC on.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartdelaney/10178695124/
 
Last edited:
i have the canon 70 - 300 is and use it on my 7d for the majority of my dogs photos, loads of examples in my flickr, chances are if its a dog moving its been shot using the above combination
 
The 70-200mm is a truly lovely lens, especially the IS version, but the problem is likely to be keeper ratio at the longer end unless you're on a tripod or have super steady hands and/or are happy to constantly adjust settings. The 70-300 Canon is also good, but let down by mediocre build IMO. The Tamron I have currently as a general purpose tele and I'm impressed: good contrast and colour, excellent VC and good sharpness. Overall it's a great option. The only downers are it's a tad bigger than the Canon, quite chunky, and the AF doesn't have the zip of a solid L class lens. Otherwise, great bang for your pound.
 
I would consider the 55-250mm STM lens, Its a completely different lens compared to the Non STM version, with whole new optics and internal focusing its very sharp and has a new 4 stop IS. far better lens than the 70-300mm and more reach than the 70-200mm f4 L.
 
Barlow said:
I'm just upgrading all my camera equipment and would like some advise on which telephoto lens to go for. Have narrowed it down to three options. It's main use would be my kids and wildlife (same thing really!!). My camera is a Canon 70D.

1) Cannon 70-200 L (non IS) f4
Realise this is the best in terms of image quality but would need to get 2nd hand as out of my price range. E-bay between £350-£375

2) Cannon 70-300 USM IS f4-5.6
Logical cheaper alternative with good reviews, extra length and IS a big plus. Currently Amazon sell for £309

3) Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 DI VC
Haven't ever owned anything but cannon but seen some really good reviews on this lens. Would love to hear from anyone that owns/experienced this. Currently Amazon sell for £293

Currently using a Cannon 75-300 USM II so any of the above lenses will be a big upgrade. I think the price of both the cannon (non L) and Tamron seems very good and I would prefer having a lens that goes to 300mm. IS and VC is also a plus. Thanks in advance for any advise.
Click to expand...

I've not used the Tamron, but either this or the Canon 70-300IS will be a big step up from your 75-300 lens at present. I've had the Canon 70-300IS and was very pleased with it and got good results with it. I've also had the 70-200F4 and it was a belter of a lens, much quicker to focus and felt very nice to use - also the lens barrel doesn't extend when changing the focal length...

If you can, I would recommend you try the lenses out yourself and see which you prefer the hold of, the use of etc...
 
I have used the Canon 70-300 and it is not a bad lens. As previously said a bit soft at 300mm but otherwise good. I have just bought the Tamron 70-300 vc usd and it is better all round in my view. Incidentally read the photozone reviews on both and they seem to agree the Tamron is better.

At under £300 new with a five year warranty it is very good value for money.

I also have the Canon 70-200 IS L and this is the sharpest of the three but not outstandingly so and like all L series lenses comes at a price.
 
I can't say I'd chose the 70-300 USM over the 70-200, but can't comment on the Tamron.
I had the 70-200 IS and wanted more reach so got the 70-300. On paper it seemed ideal but in reality anything over 220mm was a bit soft. Still useable but not as good as the 70-200.
Saying that I wouldn't get a 200mm+ lens without IS, so if it came down to the two I guess I'd go for the 70-300 USM, especily as it's a slower lens and will probably need the IS at full zoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top