BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

I realize that this might be a long shot, but has anyone had hands-on experience with both of these lenses? The Canon 70-300 IS is the non-L version(sells new for around $500+ or so). The Tamron is the newest version of their 70-300s.
I'm pretty well informed by the reviews. It seems that the Canon may be marginally better at 300mm....which is where I would frequently use it.
I have a Canon 70-200 f4 IS, and know you will probably advise that I simply get a 1.4X TC for that lens, and call it good. I have twice tried that solution, and did not like it. First it doesn't reach a full 300mm, while losing the wider end. Also you have to keep taking it on and off in the field. Would rather have a lens that's ready to go all the time. Also, I don't have the funds to purchase Canon 70-300 L or 100-400 L lenses. If I did, I would sell my 70-200 and purchase one of those. BUT....the 70-200 is just too good to part with.
So which one of the 2 lenses in question would you recommend....and why? Thanks.

Izza1967 Loc: Bristol, England

I would love an L lens, which will be my next purchase but for now am pretty happy with my Tamron :)

I can't offer comparison advice but can show you one side at least and what I have achieved with my Tamron SP 70-300 F/4-5.6 DI VC USD.

Here is a thread showing my most recent shots with the Tamron http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-123371-1.html

BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

Which shots were taken at 300mm? If these samples are indicative of the capabilities of this Tamron 70-300, I doubt that you'll be overly impressed with any "L" lens. Your shots are VERY clean, sharp and with great color. Much post processing in these samples? Thanks for them.

Izza1967 Loc: Bristol, England

The shots that were taken at 300mm were 1,4,5,6,8,10 and 11 ( I now add numbers to my image posts, but unfortunately not on these )

My PP consists of Auto Tone, Contrast and Colour in PS then adding a high pass filter to a copied layer which I set to overlay.

bioteacher Loc: Brooklyn, NY

You can get the non L version for approx $350.00 on ebay

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens 0345B002 NEW
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-Zoom-Telephoto-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-IS-USM-Lens-0345B002-NEW-/220905844177?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item336f03add1

BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

I'm aware of the cost of good used Canon 70-300's. Local Craigslist frequently has them listed. I'm asking simply which one of these two similar lenses is the better of the 2, and why.
Though am sometimes tempted to maybe try and work out some sort of trade/cash deal involving my Canon 70-200 f4 IS USM in exchange for which ever of these two 70-300's is the better one. I think I might get more use from the longer zoom. But that's just a thought right now.

mvetrano2 Loc: Commack, NY

I've had both and prefer the Tamron, sold the Canon on ebay. Tamron lighter and faster zooming, picture quality is pretty much the same on both with a slight edge to the Tamron.

Michael Digital Loc: Spring Hill, Florida

I sold my 70-200L after purchasing and using the 70/300L for a few weeks. I soon saw that I would never use the 70/200L as long as I had the 70/300L. The 70/300L is the best lens I have ever owned. If selling the 70/200 allows you to get the 70/300L it would probably be a very good upgrade for you.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I have the 70-200 F4L and put a Tamron SP 1.4X behind it and rarely take it off - and mostly never miss the 70-100 range. At 105 -280 with TC it is a superb lens ! Make sure you have a tripod collor for better balance on a tripod or monopod. Put this - http://www.ebay.com/itm/XPRO-F500-67mm-Close-Up-Lens-Macro-lens-Super-Macro-Conversion-Lens-/280874520769?pt=Camera_Filters&hash=item41656d10c1#ht_4533wt_1317 - on the front of it for macro work. I have used the Tamron 70-300 - it is a great lens - very light weight - but still no match for the Canon 70-200 w/1.4x !

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The difference between 280 and 300mm - as a practical matter is non exisitent. You might also look at the discontinued Sigma 100-300 F4 - no IS/OS though - but as good or better than L lenses ! I have both - that is how I know.

steinr98

If you run a true test on both of those lenses, you will find that the canon lens is sharper esp at the 300 range. I have seen sharp photos from the Tamron but in actual tests the good Canon 70-300(the $500-600 dollar lens)is a bit clearer.
Only you can determine how sharp you want your photos. Some people believe in "Oh that is good enough"!! Then buy the Tamron. We at our club ran a test on the L series $1500 Canon 70-300 against the $500 Canon 70-300 lens and there was not very much difference at all- in fact several could not tell the difference in the tests-(except the $1500 lens is painted white!!)

cheineck Loc: Hobe Sound, FL

Love my Tamron on my Canon 5DMark II -- this was taken hand-held at 300mm, f/8, 1/50 second.

tamron 70-300 image


downloadable

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

I returned to photography three years ago. I am an old guy from film. I am not brand specific. I was gifted a Xti 18-55, 55-250. I was mostly satisfied but knew an L would give a higher quality. I was given the 18-135 that was tack sharp. I wanted like you longer glass. I though that I wanted the DO. I went to Canon in the Parks at YP/GT. There I found that the non L looked good and I found many pros shooting that lens with the L in the trunk. From summer to Christmas I also had lots of opportunities to shoot the Tamron. I really could have gone either way but I thought that Canon had the edge. During the Christmas season Tamron had some great pricing. I ended up purchasing the Canon 12/21/2012. It was a refurbished priced at -240 USD. I have been very happy with this lens. I love the extra 50mm. I am glad that you are aware of the secondary used market. I bought one for a friend for 275 USD. It looked like it had not been used. It probably had not been as the woman had a 18-200. I might mention that I would also like to go longer – I think. Would I shoot a Tamron, Yes! If you want to trade your L, how much money will toss in! HA! "JR"

wingincamera Loc: Spanaway, Washington

Back when I had a Canon 5D I wanted a 100mm macro lens and was trying to decide between the Canon 100L macro or the Sigma 100mm Macro. Both were F2.8 with IS and USM or HSM focus.
I ordered both from B&H and tried them out. Although the Canon cost a little more, I ended up keeping it and returning the Sigma. The main difference was the Canon had slightly better IS, but they were very close.

I mention this because you could do the same thing with the 70-300mm decision. You will have to pay for shipping one of the lens back to B&H, but you end up with what you want.

pigpen

I used to own the Tamron, but wasn't completely happy. The IS is amazing!!! You can actual watch the picture freeze in the viewfinder. The problem I had was with exposure. As it was bought for wildlife/action shots, it was mostly set to the fastest burst mode possible. Most of the images differed greatly from one to the next. It was odd, almost like I had the camera set to "bracket". A few images were properly exposed, then I'd get one or two over exposed then under exsposed. The "keepers" that I got from this lens were quite nice. However, it was a roll of the dice. I almost got the Canon version, but went with the 400mm f/5.6 L instead. I know it's a lot more money, but I was always at 300mm anyway, and many times wanting more.