calibansa333 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 207 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 2792 times:
Hey Everyone!
So after some good times with my Canon EF-S 55-250 IS, I feel it's time to move on and make the step up to a better lens. I've been browsing for quite some time now and I'm caught between the Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD and the Sigma 70-300 F/4-5.6 DG OS. They are both very similar, boasting almost identical features, but varying in price, manufacturer, release (Tamron 2010, Sigma 2009) and brand.
So that's where all of you fine people come in I was curious if you would be willing to share your opinions on any of these two lenses. Maybe some of you have used one, or both and have some advice/suggestions/opinions you'd be willing to share! I would appreciate it very much!
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4741 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month ago) and read 2750 times:
I'll be pretty honest and say you're not looking at too much of an upgrade there. The quality of both lenses isn't too dissimilar to what you already have. As SIA6696 suggests, tell us your budget and we can go from there.
The sharpness of the Tamron at 70 is better then the Canon 70-300 L, but not as good at 300.
If you are willing to spend a bit more, and sacrifice a bit at the long end, the Canon 70-200 f/4 USM is a lot sharper, and is what many photographers here use.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2728 times:
Quoting SIA6696 (Reply 6): If you are willing to spend a bit more, and sacrifice a bit at the long end, the Canon 70-200 f/4 USM is a lot sharper, and is what many photographers here use.
You are right. But the lack of IS might be a big drawback for some folks (it definitely is to me). I've been using the 70-200 f4 IS and I love it. But it's of course much more expensive....
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
SIA6696 From Australia, joined Dec 2009, 90 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2725 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 7): ut the lack of IS might be a big drawback for some folks
IS isn't essential, as i have many shots in the database taken without IS, but it definitely helps, especially with heavier and larger lenses and with lower light conditions.
Also on another note the IS version is sharper then the non-IS version.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4741 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2720 times:
Quoting SIA6696 (Reply 8): IS isn't essential, as i have many shots in the database taken without IS, but it definitely helps, especially with heavier and larger lenses and with lower light conditions
That depends on what you shoot, when and how. Not essential to me at all but some folks will swear by it. I couldn't have taken 90% of the images I took last month at the Sinsheim and Speyer museums without IS.
Quoting SIA6696 (Reply 6): The sharpness of the Tamron at 70 is better then the Canon 70-300 L, but not as good at 300
According to the testing of one lens on one body. I always find the best way to test is to have a copy in your hands and go play with it. I can guarantee that - despite never having used the Tamorn - the 70-300L will blow it out of the water in every way (apart from size/weight of course).
You never know with one of these online tests just how good a copy of camera or lens they're using. I remember looking at a few tests of the 24-105L on a 50D and it looked amazing. My first copy of the lens on my 50D was nothing like on my 50D!
calibansa333 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 207 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2707 times:
Quoting SIA6696 (Reply 1): Whats your price range like, it's a good starting point when choosing a lens.
$400 - about $600
Quoting SNATH (Reply 5): Here are the review @ photozone for these lenses:
Thanks for all those links Tony, the lens comparison shows that the Tamron is a little bit sharper against the Canon.
I would agree, I'd rather just use a tripod. But lets keep this thread on track with lens comparisons please.
Quoting SNATH (Reply 7): I've been using the 70-200 f4 IS
Would it make much sense attaching such a good lens to a 450D?
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 9): You never know with one of these online tests just how good a copy of camera or lens they're using.
Valid point
One feature I really like about the Tamron is that the front element doesn't rotate, so in the case of using a polarizing filter or lens hood you wouldn't have to recompose your shot after focusing.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4741 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2704 times:
Up to $600 and I'd definitely go with the 70-200 f/4 L. What you lose in reach you'll gain in build and quality; and besides, 200mm + crop will probably match the quality of the Tamron at the full 300mm.
It doesn't matter what body you attach it to as the lens determines image quality more than the camera. It'll be sweet on a 450D basically - providing you as a photographer know what you're doing.
Remember, owning an expensive lens is not an automatic entitlement to great shots. A good lens makes it much harder to blame the glass!
calibansa333 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 207 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2696 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 11): Remember, owning an expensive lens is not an automatic entitlement to great shots. A good lens makes it much harder to blame the glass!
Thanks for your advice! I like to think of it as a "teacher" to help improve my overall shooting skills... if that makes any sense
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2686 times:
Quoting SIA6696 (Reply 8):
IS isn't essential, as i have many shots in the database taken without IS, but it definitely helps, especially with heavier and larger lenses and with lower light conditions.
Of course IS is not essential (especially if you shoot, say, on clear days with good light, etc.). But such shooting is a bit boring and I much prefer challenging, low light conditions. In those cases, IS has saved my bacon way too many times....
Quoting SIA6696 (Reply 8): Also on another note the IS version is sharper then the non-IS version.
This is definitely the case. When Canon came up with the 70-200 f4 IS they really raised the bar with respect to IQ.
Quoting calibansa333 (Reply 10): Would it make much sense attaching such a good lens to a 450D?
Sure, why not? I was shooting the 70-200 f4 IS on my 400D before I got the 40D. And I still used it on my 400D after I got my 40D when I was using the 400D as a back-up body:
SIA6696 From Australia, joined Dec 2009, 90 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2660 times:
Quoting calibansa333 (Reply 10): Would it make much sense attaching such a good lens to a 450D?
You can attach any lens to the 450D. I am currently using a 100-400 on my 500D. Its no point having the best camera body if you have a rubbish lens, its better to have a better lens.
dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, RR: 12 Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2619 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 9): According to the testing of one lens on one body. I always find the best way to test is to have a copy in your hands and go play with it. I can guarantee that - despite never having used the Tamorn - the 70-300L will blow it out of the water in every way (apart from size/weight of course).
Given that it costs three times as much, I'd hope it would. But the 70-300 VC is very good value for the money. It'd probably serve someone well until they decided they needed to really shell out $1500.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2598 times:
Quoting dvincent (Reply 15): But the 70-300 VC is very good value for the money. It'd probably serve someone well until they decided they needed to really shell out $1500.
And that's the problem - by buying an 'interim' lens you ultimately end up spending more money. I hate to think how much I've wasted over the years buying 'bargains' - and still ended up shelling out for the real thing! Sadly, its not always possible to judge just how committed you are to the hobby in advance.
For top end lenses, the 2nd hand route is a viable option. These things tend to last forever, and if you buy from a reputable dealer you should get a warranty period if the lens does prove faulty.
dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, RR: 12 Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2579 times:
Quoting ckw (Reply 17): And that's the problem - by buying an 'interim' lens you ultimately end up spending more money. I hate to think how much I've wasted over the years buying 'bargains' - and still ended up shelling out for the real thing! Sadly, its not always possible to judge just how committed you are to the hobby in advance.
Most good lenses tend to retain most of their value over the years. Before I bought my 70-400 G, I used a Sigma 50-500. I paid $799 for it brand new (a bargain, as it usually sold for $999) and wound up reselling it for about $700 when I bought the G. I did this namely because the 70-400 G didn't exist at the time. I took a lot of good pics with that lens. Is the G better? Absolutely. It's the best telezoom you can buy today. But it was worth exactly jack and squat when it was A. nonexistant and B. way out of my budget until I was able to sell the Bigma and save up for it.
It's also really tough to tell if spending $1600 is a good idea if you're just getting in to something. If you buy a good (but not the best) lens (which the 70-300 VC is), and you decide you need the marginal utility of a 100-400 or something that costs three times as much later on, then you can make that decision then. In the interim, you've taken, say, two years of good photographs.
A lens in hand is worth more than one on the shelf, as it were.
calibansa333 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 207 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2541 times:
Has anyone here had the chance to use both the 70-200 f4L IS and the same lens without IS? I've decided on the 70-200 L but now I'm trying to weigh the advantage of the IS feature against the jump in price. Instinct tells me I'll need it and it would be highly beneficial in low light situations, but then again you could probably get away without having IS? Plus with the IS you have the advantage of not paying for a tripod mount/monopod/tripod that you would need to shoot in low light conditions without IS. Besides, I wouldn't only be using this lens for just aviation photography. Just curious what your thoughts are and if any of you have been in the situation I mentioned how beneficial did you find the IS feature? Thanks!
I have not used the non-IS version. But, to me, IS is worth its weight in gold. Can you get away without IS? Of course. Both these shots were taken with a (rented) 400 5.6 which doesn't have IS:
I had mounted the lens on a tripod, was using a remote shutter release, etc. But the reason I ended up not buying the 400 5.6 was because, even though I liked it overall, its lack of IS was limiting to me. Again, using a tripod will make up the lack of IS in many situations, but it also slows you down and you cannot always set up a tripod. Here's a good example of this:
I couldn't have taken this shot without IS, as the light conditions were challenging and museums do not allow tripods.
Now, the 70-200 f4 IS has three advantages over the non-IS version:
a) it has IS (obviously!), and it's Canon's generation 3 4-stop IS and it's great
b) it's considered to be sharper
c) it's weather-sealed
Its only drawback is the price. But, if you can afford the IS version, there's no reason to buy the non-IS version (IMHO at least). Also consider that the L lenses are built like tanks and keep their value very nicely. So, if for some reason you ultimately want to sell it, you'll get back most of your money. (Just make sure you look after it well!)
Regarding the tripod collar: get a third-party one (I did; and even with IS sometimes you do want to mount the lens on a tripod). Canon is asking for $150 for the tripod collar (which should be sold along with the lens in the first place) is just ridiculous. Don't get ripped off.
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
calibansa333 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 207 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2490 times:
An excellent choice. I'm sorry my advice is costing you more money. But I'm sure you will not regret buying it. It's a great lens (and the only one I miss after moving to Nikon).
Quoting calibansa333 (Reply 21): On a side note, love those pictures from KBOS, were those taken from Constitution Beach?
calibansa333 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 207 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2431 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 22): I'm sorry my advice is costing you more money.
Ha ha, not a problem, I'm sure it will save me money in the long run that I would have spent on other lenses, and the good thing about such great glass, is you won't need a new lens in the next 5 years plus some.
Browsed through your photos and you've got quite a nice collection from that angle, I'll have to get down there at some point when I finally pick up the L.
scopedude From Indonesia, joined Oct 2010, 53 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2390 times:
I have been using 70-200/4 IS until I thought it would be nice to have a 70-300. So I got myself a Tamron 70-300VC - and a month later the shop told me they had the new 70-300L. So I compared the Tamron against the new Canon. I ended up selling the Tamron and bought the 70-300L. From 70 to 200mm, I can't tell the difference between 70-300L and my 70-200/4 IS. I still keep the latter, though.
Tamron 70-300VC is a good lens, at a very good price - but it's kinda soft (from 200-300mm) on my 60D. I tried one on D7000 and it was sharper (dunno why).
PS: I got the 70-300L at 'only' $1250.
just my 0.02
5D2, 650D, 70-200/4 IS, 70-300 L, 135 L
25 afterburner: Two possibilities: the Canon version of the lens is not a good copy, or the D7000 is a better camera (or at least better sensor).
26 JakTrax: Or perhaps the cameras are set up slightly differently? Cameras don't really make sharpness - lenses do. Karl
27 scopedude: I always shoot RAW. When I sold the Tamron 70-300VC f/ Canon to a friend, it was sharp on his 450D and 40D. Nevertheless, both D7000 and 60D are extre
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 207 posts, 
I was curious if you would be willing to share your opinions on any of these two lenses. Maybe some of you have used one, or both and have some advice/suggestions/opinions you'd be willing to share! I would appreciate it very much! 
From Australia, joined Dec 2009, 90 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4741 posts, 
In those cases, IS has saved my bacon way too many times....
But the 70-300 VC is very good value for the money. It'd probably serve someone well until they decided they needed to really shell out $1500.
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Oct 2010, 53 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
