BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

I've heard both good and bad things about both. The specific lenses are the Tamron 70-300mm VC version, the newest one selling for $400.00, and the Canon EF 70-300 IS USM (non-L, and not the DO) which sells for around $500.
I have a Canon Digital Rebel...T2i. I have visited Photozone web site, and get mixed messages there. I've read many users reports which paint both lenses to be quite good, but then "not too great" as well. So maybe too much reading and research has made making a decision even worse.
Just to clarify, I believe the Tamron version (of interest here) may be the only version currently on the market. The Canon version happened to be the only Canon 70-300 (there are a few 75-300s) IS USM lens made until the more recent 70-300 IS USM "L" lens (white one).

So....anyone here have light to shine on these 2 lenses? Please do NOT toss any other options in the ring right now.
Thanks

Photosmoke

I have the Tam, think it's a great lens, I did a lot of reading reports before the purchase- it got better ratings than the canon or nikon

kmohr3 Loc: Rockford, IL

I have them both - both are pretty decent lenses.

If they were both gone for some reason, I would probably buy another Tamron 70-300mm VC to fill the void.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Bob," the-digital-picture.com" can give you very good descriptions of both lenses. They are not trying to sway the reader towards anything, and are very knowledgable of the gear. You might find something you did not know. GL

heyjoe Loc: cincinnati ohio

i like the canon 70-300,some good deals on used ones,

lemontart Loc: uk

I feel your pain been doing similar over past few days and hedging towards the tam over sigma and nikon

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

I have briefly used a Tamron and owned the non L 70-300 a couple of times. It has had high ratings from reviews and I concur with them. The lens is lighter weight and easy to use in most light. It is a light hog. I currently am carrying the DO version of the 70-300. I like it well enough.

J. R.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Do comparisons.

BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

Visited "the-digital-picture.com" site AGAIN, and checked out both 70-300s....AGAIN. Neither does very well nearing 300mm. In fact rather poorly. But then I sucked it up and checked out the stats of my Canon 70-200 f4 IS USM "L" lens....at 280mm....with a 1.4X Canon TC. SPECTACULAR results in comparison to the 70-300s at 300mm. From such results, it appears I'd be foolish NOT to use the TC over the native 70-300 lenses. So I think I will be pursuing TC usage. I realize what that does to my wider aperture. But would be no worse than the native lenses. Right.

Thanks to all for your comments.

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

I have the Canon 70-300 IS lens, not the L version, and it is decent, but not amazing. You can get these like new for $300-$350. I also have the 70-300 DO Canon lens which is better, very compact and which can be picked up in great condition here in LA Craigslist for about $500-550. Then the next level up is the 70-300L lens which has great reviews, but at twice the cost. I have no info on the Tamron lens.