Tamron SP 70-300mm VC USD Image Quality Tests

Orville

Orville

Messages
803
Edit My Images
No
Some sample 100% crops from my Tamron 70-300 VC mated to a 6D. I was stunned by the IQ, very nearly as good as my recently sold 70-300L (I needed the funds).

Full images including RAW, DPP converted JPEG's and LR converted JPEG's with one-click lens correction are available by clicking link below. https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=73A101F181693680!3282&authkey=!AIM4YYLtBsaSAaY&ithint=folder,
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=73A101F181693680!3282&authkey=!AIM4YYLtBsaSAaY&ithint=folder,

100% Crops
70mm F/4 (wide open) and F/8
View attachment 20385View attachment 20387

100mm F/4.5 (wide open) and F/8
View attachment 20388View attachment 20389

Further crops within next post.
 
Summary
*Center image resolution is extremely high from 70mm-135mm. 200mm resolution is very good wide open and extremely good from F/8. 250mm softens wide open and 300mm becomes softer still. The long end sharpens nicely at F/8 and is sharpest at F/11.
*There is significant vignetting on FF wide open. Lightroom corrects this easily.
*AF is very fast and accurate. It is not Canon 70-300L fast, but it really is not far off.
*The lens is black so is much less conspicuous than my 70-300L.
*Build quality is very good, but well below L.
*The 70-300L resolves higher resolution from 200-300mm, but from 70-200 IQ is is hard to distinguish.
*The image stabilisation is as good as anything else I have tried on Canon lenses. 300mm at 1/25th is easy.
*This is a great value 70-300 Full Frame capable lens. Good for anyone who wants decent IQ but does not need the build quality, cost or "whiteness" of the 70-300L.
 
Last edited:
Really very useful because although I have one of these, I did find it a little soft like you have at the long end wide open and was considering the 70 -200 Canon L and have even considered getting the 55-250 back as I had been abiding the long end but maybe I need to realise that 1. I need to close the aperturedown to f8 when I'm using wide open at the long end. 2. It's a 300 quid lens am I expecting too much!? One other point is that I've taken my filter off (uv I think) and the Bokeh is much nicer, more smooth which is something I picked up from the tamron 70-200 vc thread. Overall, an excellent lens.
 
I have owned the 70-200L F/4 IS, 70-300L and 100-400L. All of these lenses were great and had superb build. The IQ and constant aperture of the 70-200L were very good and my 70-300L was even better. The 100-400L was good for it's time but too heavy for daily use and IQ doesn't quite cut it on modern day FF sensors.

All of the above have been sold and I now own the Tamron 70-300 VC. The Tammy's IQ is good enough, it is reasonably well built, the IS (VC) is great, it is well-priced and importantly for me is unobtrusive as it is black. I never really got on with the idea of white lenses and didn't appreciate the looks some people gave them. The Tamron is by no means equal to the above L lenses, but it is in many ways more practical, better value and sufficient for non-pro use. I personally use the 24-70mm range much more than 70+ so this suits my occasional needs much better than £800+ L lenses.

However, for anyone who wants a long lens which absolutley has to be a Canon L, I really do recommend the 70-300L.

edit: Useful tip - LR does a much better job of converting from RAW to JPG than DPP does. For the same file sizes LR resolves more detail within JPG's. This may change with future DPP updates. This difference can be seen within full images linked within original post.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top