Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Lens for Canon

I wanted to replace my 16-year old Canon 100-400L because it was too heavy to carry in a backpack all day and I wanted a more updated IS system. I really hoped this Tamron would do the trick because I didn't want to shell out 3 times as much money for the Canon 70-300L. I also considered the Canon non-L version. Some reviews of that lens are very impressive, rating its image quality much higher than the Tamron and even comparable to the L version. However, other reviews said the Tamron gives slightly better image quality, and backed it up with pictures taken in real-life situations (which to me are more meaningful than pictures of flat target images in a studio, though those have their place). I think the differing comparisons between the Tamron and the non-L Canon ... MoreI wanted to replace my 16-year old Canon 100-400L because it was too heavy to carry in a backpack all day and I wanted a more updated IS system. I really hoped this Tamron would do the trick because I didn't want to shell out 3 times as much money for the Canon 70-300L. I also considered the Canon non-L version. Some reviews of that lens are very impressive, rating its image quality much higher than the Tamron and even comparable to the L version. However, other reviews said the Tamron gives slightly better image quality, and backed it up with pictures taken in real-life situations (which to me are more meaningful than pictures of flat target images in a studio, though those have their place). I think the differing comparisons between the Tamron and the non-L Canon probably came down to quality differences between the individual copies of the respective lenses that the reviewers ended up with, which tells me there might be some disparity there. In the end I decided against the non-L Canon because of its reportedly cheap feel, the fact that it extends during focusing, and the rotating front element which makes it challenging to use certain filters like polarizers.So I got this Tamron, and found that it was really a joy to use (which is the reason a rated it as high as I did). It felt good on my Rebel (especially compared to the 100-400!), and focus seemed spot-on with every shot. Some reviewers said the snappy IS can be disconcerting, but I actually found it reassuring during shooting to have the image snap in place and stay there. I enjoyed shooting with it.Unfortunately all that joy was quickly deflated when I opened up my test images on my computer. They were very soft, especially wide open, and some had a hazy appearance to them where the bright areas seemed to send a "glow" into the dark areas. This improved greatly when the lens was stopped down, but in many telephoto situations you need as much light as possible and stopping down is not an option. Color rendition was nice overall, though in certain shots there was a mild to severe color shift, which may have had something to do with the lens' interaction with the camera's color balance system(?). This was not a consistent problem, but it did occur.With much disappointment, I turned around and ordered the Canon L. Before sending the Tamron back, I took identical test shots with both lenses to get a real comparison (and to make sure the extra money for the Canon was justified). In the Tamron's favor, it is noticeably lighter in weight than the Canon L (they are basically the same size), and as I said, the Tamron was a joy to shoot with. I did enjoy shooting with the Canon as well (carrying it around all day may be a different story, but it is still MUCH lighter and smaller than my old 100-400L, so I'll take it). The Canon may have been slightly quicker in focusing, but I still thought the Tamron was very good. The Canon's more subtle IS didn't give the same feeling of confidence during shooting that the Tamron's snappy IS did, but actually the resulting images were very close and if anything the Canon had the slight edge in minimizing camera shake. The IS on both was very good. However, the difference in sharpness between the two lenses was undeniable, especially at wider apertures. The Canon L wins, hands down! The only exception was with a few close-up shots I took, where the Canon back-focused a bit behind the subject so the Tamron gave the appearance of being sharper. But aside from these few exceptions, the Canon was much better. Bottom line - The Canon L is a great lens! I returned the Tamron.In conclusion, it may be true that comparing this Tamron to a lens 3 times more expensive isn't really fair, but if sharpness matters to you, it's a comparison you have to make. This lens (or at least the one I got) may be fine for situations where you would normally want to stop down anyway (i.e. landscapes or other still subjects shot at wider focal lengths in bright lighting conditions, or tripod mounted shots), for portraits (where a little softness is often not a bad thing) or for general snapshots that are just going to be posted on Facebook (though if that is your primary interest then you probably aren't reading this review because you are likely using a simple point-and-shoot or your cellphone rather than lugging around an SLR). But I would not want to use it for situations where it is necessary to shoot at wider apertures (i.e. moving subjects. lower light situations, or longer telephoto shots without a tripod), unless you plan on viewing/displaying the image at a small size where softness won't be as noticeable. If you want to do any large size display or cropping into the image to further isolate your subject, forget it. I ordered this lens primarily for shooting wildlife, but the one I ended up with would not have worked well for that.

Love this lens! It is quite compact for traveling. The picture is still quite sharp and usable and I use it adapted to a Fujifilm XS20. The VC (Image Stabilization) really works wonders, even at 300mm; it pairs really well with my camera's in-body stabilization. I'd recommend this best for traveling, casual, or even wildlife photography but it's usable for pro-work in a pinch!

This is a fantastic addition to my growing lens collection. I think it performs better than my friend's Nikkor equivalent zoom, with greater sharpness and better VC. Though it was listed as a demo, I could see no evidence that it was ever unboxed, so it is in pristine condition. I'm already getting shots of distant birds that my Nikkor 55-200mm was almost useless for. Some complain the VC is a little noisy as it engages and disengages, but since I don't do any video work, I have no complaints. The auto-focus is almost instantaneous, markedly faster and more accurate than the aforementioned Nikkor zoom I have. So, yes, very happy with this lens. The photo accompanying this review is the very first one taken fresh out of the box.