Tamron 70-300 VC or Canon 70-200 F4IS?

[JamesAg96]

Posted on POTN as well, wanted to also get y'alls thoughts.

I've been saving for a bit with the F4IS in in mind and finally have enough pick up a nice used one.

Now I'm seeing some reviews claiming the Tamron performs "almost" as well as the Canon and of course offers up another 100mm for much cheaper so I'm suffering from paralysis by analysis.

Thoughts, suggestions? My subject matter will largely be my son and his friends, things I see while on the road, and an occasional college football game from the stands.

Anyone else looked at these two recently?

Thanks on advance.

[Killjoy]

Originally Posted by JamesAg96

Posted on POTN as well, wanted to also get y'alls thoughts.

I've been saving for a bit with the F4IS in in mind and finally have enough pick up a nice used one.

Now I'm seeing some reviews claiming the Tamron performs "almost" as well as the Canon and of course offers up another 100mm for much cheaper so I'm suffering from paralysis by analysis.

Thoughts, suggestions? My subject matter will largely be my son and his friends, things I see while on the road, and an occasional college football game from the stands.

Anyone else looked at these two recently?

Thanks on advance.

With that fact, I wouldn't even look at it. Oh, I have some off brand lenses, but they are for my old AE-1.

Something else to consider, is the fact that when Canon releases a new camera, they will have updated a lot.
When you go to upgrade your camera body, that Tamron lens may not work with it.
Canon does not share thier technology with other manufacturers.
The other guys have to try to backward engineer thier products to work with Canon products (same goes for Nikon, etc).
Tamron (and Sigma) will sometimes be able to "re-chip" their lenses to work with the newer cameras, but not always, and certainly not right away.

[larrycumba]

I have the Tamron and am happy with it. It is very big and heavy. If you have the chance I would look at them side by side. For the money I think it is a real bargain.

[shnitz]

It really depends on what you want to shoot. I think third-party lenses are a very viable option, if you do your homework. Really, in this instance you have to decide on whether you would prefer constant-aperture and solid performance wide open, or whether you want the extra zoom range. People compare the Tamron to Canon's various 70-300 lenses, so you should start by researching there. After a quick google search:
Flickr: Discussing TEST 5dmk2 & Tamron 70-300 VC Lens in Canon EOS 5D Mark II.

70-200 is good enough for shooting kids in the front yard, but you definitely notice the zoom range to 300mm if you're trying to shoot sports from the stands. Also, while I'm a huge proponent of Tamron, I don't think I'd go as far to say that it provides near L-quality images.

[duronboy]

the Canon is quite a bit pricier, but for good reason. I guarantee the Canon AF is tons faster than the tamron. I also believe the sharpness of the Canon is superior at most of the focal-lengths the two lenses share. 100% crop comparison at 200mm

[hdctx]

Is your budget for version one or version two of Canon's stabilization system? If you're comparing the older Canon against the new Tamron, and you're shooting handheld or on a monopod, the Tamron may have the image advantage. If you're comparing the newer Canon against the Tamron, the Canon probably has the edge. The quality of the stabilization system is arguably more important than the quality of the glass. That said, Ariel has a good point. Shooting from the stands, the extra 100mm will really come in handy. If you have to crop and zoom the Canon image, the Tamron will probably beat it.
Good Luck!

[kenw]

You should seriously look at why you think you need IS. For sports and such, I would recommend faster glass (f2.8) over IS since IS won't do squat for fast moving subjects. The Canon 70-200f4IS and the 70-200f2.8 nonIS are within $200, and you are going to get a lot more use out of f2.8 IMHO. For me, fast glass beats slow glass even with IS/VR/whatever.

Unless you are on the field at most college games, 200mm won't get you there, especially from the upper deck at Kyle Field. I had to use my 300mm in the horseshoe to get anything decent even near the endzone.

[ronaldfaldik]

As one Aggie to another.............
Go with the Canon !
Focus is faster, optics are better, resale is great !
BTW...GigEm!

[venchka]

Originally Posted by kenw

You should seriously look at why you think you need IS. For sports and such, I would recommend faster glass (f2.8) over IS since IS won't do squat for fast moving subjects. The Canon 70-200f4IS and the 70-200f2.8 nonIS are within $200, and you are going to get a lot more use out of f2.8 IMHO. For me, fast glass beats slow glass even with IS/VR/whatever.

Unless you are on the field at most college games, 200mm won't get you there, especially from the upper deck at Kyle Field. I had to use my 300mm in the horseshoe to get anything decent even near the endzone.

What Ken said. Save up for awhile longer. After you get the f/2.8 lens, start a fund for the 1.4 TC. Then you will be better equipped for long distance shooting. Even your kid's soccer games will need all the mm's you can get.

[kenw]

btw, TAMU '77 here.....