Canon Vs Tamron - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/26/2005 01:08:30 AM · #1

Sorry if this has been covered many times.
Canon 20D camera. Ok I have the Canon EF 75-300 4-5.6 III USM. I'm not overly pleased with it's sharpness. Good pics but not the fine detail on the "feathers of a birds wing" as I would like to get.

Looking at possibilty of the Tamron AF 28-300 XR Di 3.5-6.3. or maybe even the Tamron 28-200. So for those with experience with these two lenses ... can I expect a sharper / clearer photo with the Tamron? or such a small difference I would not know?

Thanks all!

Rikki

Canon EOS-20D

07/26/2005 01:15:53 AM · #2

I have had both lenses. I sold the Canon and opted for the tamron because it was a Macro as well (28-300mm).I don't seem to understand why you can't get the sharpness.

If you're looking to get the "feathers" etc. texture if you will, then I think a macro is what you're looking for. Both lenses are relatively light. Maybe a monopod or a tripod is required.

kjennings

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/26/2005 01:29:44 AM · #3

i thoroughly enjoy my canon 70-200 f/4L USM, it is very sharp and an awesome lens.

PhantomEWO

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/26/2005 01:32:02 AM · #4

Maybe I should say the Canon seems a little soft

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/26/2005 02:06:24 AM · #5

A rule of thumb is that if the zoom range exceeds 3:1 you are going to sacrifice sharpness across the range. And something else to consider: look at the following pictures of the 70-200 4L and your 75-300 â��

See what I mean? You just KNOW, intuitively, that something has to be sacrificed optically to pack so much zoom into so much smaller a package. I tested the 75-300 and did not like it at all, frankly.

Robt.

brianlh

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/26/2005 03:42:22 AM · #6

I've never tested or read much about it, but for the reason that bear mentions I wouldn't expect the Tamron to be sharper than the Canon 75-300.

07/26/2005 03:48:36 AM · #7

I believe the 28-300 is good for the range, but overall it's not a great quality lens. As bear_music said - that's just what you get with zoomy lenses.

The Sigma 70-300 is supposed to be pretty good.

lwkimages

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/26/2005 04:45:19 AM · #8

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

I had the Sigma 70-300, sold it in favor of the Canon 70-200 f4/L, and am glad I did. If you need more reach, consider this Canon along with the 1.4x extender.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/26/2005 05:05:25 AM · #9

Originally posted by lenkphotos:

Originally posted by PaulMdx:
The Sigma 70-300 is supposed to be pretty good.

I had the Sigma 70-300, sold it in favor of the Canon 70-200 f4/L, and am glad I did. If you need more reach, consider this Canon along with the 1.4x extender.

The 70-200 L's are good lenses - I have the f/2.8 - but there's quite a difference in price. :-)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/26/2005 06:17:57 AM · #10

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by lenkphotos:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
The Sigma 70-300 is supposed to be pretty good.

I had the Sigma 70-300, sold it in favor of the Canon 70-200 f4/L, and am glad I did. If you need more reach, consider this Canon along with the 1.4x extender.

The 70-200 L's are good lenses - I have the f/2.8 - but there's quite a difference in price. :-)

Yeah, too much difference for me in this buying cycle. I tried to find a way to do it, but... That f/2.8 REALLY makes the viewfinder brighter and easier to focus in low light... Optically it seems to be a draw, so... I used common sense, sigh.

R.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/26/2005 06:41:45 AM · #11

Originally posted by bear_music:

I was actually referring to the difference in cost between the Sigma 70-300 and Canon 70-200/4L.

But yes, the f/2.8 does kick ass. :-)

notonline

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

07/26/2005 07:32:30 AM · #12

I have the Tamron AF 28-300 XR Di 3.5-6.3 etc. and think its works very well as a good walk around lense. If you were in Toronto I'd say come try it out and let me know what you think. I post some shots later if you'd like.

superdave_909

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/26/2005 07:42:02 AM · #13

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

I think if you trade in for either of those you will be trading down!
I have read reviews that the 28-300 is horribly soft at 300 and I know
for fact that the 28-200 is soft at 200, however pretty sharp at 28.
If you want something with better optics I would suggest the cannon
70-200 f4 L at about $580, if you want just a slight improvement to
what you have I would look at the tamron 70-300 macro or sigma 70-300 APO
just my 2 cents!

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/26/2005 08:21:44 AM · #14

I agree, get the f/4L

samtrundle

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/26/2005 08:27:01 AM · #15

The other thing is that with the 1.5 X crop factor the tamrons wide end is going to be 42 mm - which isn't really very wide at all. I don't know what the go will be in the states or whereever you are from, but down here in Australia the 70-200 f4 is more than twice the price of the tamron 28-300, so the difference may well be prohibitive. As for the f2.8 model - fuggetahhboutit :)!

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

07/26/2005 08:31:16 AM · #16

Originally posted by rikki11:

... If you're looking to get the "feathers" etc. texture if you will, then I think a macro is what you're looking for. ...

I don't think you need to have a macro lens to get the texture of a bird's feathers. A lens with the designation Macro in it's name is just one that will focus on objects relatively close to the camera, such as about a foot or less. Being a Macro says nothing about what level of sharpness a lens can achieve. Here's a bird shot with plenty of texture in the feathers which was taken using a telephoto that will not focus any closer than about 6-8 feet.

holdingtime

Canon EOS-5D

07/26/2005 08:35:52 AM · #17

I have thought a lens soft in the past only to find when I placed it on a tripod it no longer was soft........guess I am not as stable as I think I am sometimes. My Tamron 200-500 at 500 with a 1.6 factor gave me razor sharp feathers on a hawk 150 feet away but I had to use a tripod and shutter releas.

07/26/2005 08:37:07 AM · #18

Originally posted by samtrundle:

The other thing is that with the 1.5 X crop factor

The 20D has a 1.6x crop, so it would be even more telephoto: 44.8mm.

awpollard

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

07/26/2005 09:25:12 AM · #19

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

I have the Tamron AF 28-300 XR Di 3.5-6.3 and it has been collecting dust for quite some time now. The problem that I find that it is an unpredictable lens (found that others noted the same thing on Fred Miranda). It can take ok pictures but it's like rolling dice as to what you get out of it on the long end...

You can put the cam on a tripod and take the same exact shot twice and sharpness will vary between the two shots. It's an alright lens but not for mission critical shooting as you never really know what your getting...it's not a front/back focus issue, it just gets soft every so often. There will be a lot of Post P with this lens.

Personally I will never get a NON "SP" Tamron lens again.

I ended up going with the Canon EF 70-200mm 4L (and throw a Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DG 1.4x Teleconvertor on it from time to time) and never have that I'm going to miss the shot feeling that I have with the Tamy AF 28-300.

Andy

yido

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

07/26/2005 11:54:10 AM · #20

Andy,
Neither of the Tamrons or the Canon 75-300 is sharp past 200mm. No megazoom lens, not even the L lens is good at the tele end.
My suggestion is to consider the Sigma APO II 70-300 in DG if you want sub $200 zoom. If you want to spend more, then consider the 70-200 f4/2.8L or the Sigma 70-200 EX f2.8. But these 70-200 lens don't have the reach that a 70-300 has. I've had and sold the Sigma 70-300 (b/c I got the Bigma) and have a 70-200 f2.8L lens. The feel and the characteristics are different. With the Sigma 70-300, I tended to use it more in zoos and candid street portraits, with the 70-200, I found it too short and used it mostly for posed portraits. A 1.4x TC would work for the 70-200 to give it more reach, but it adds to the cost, slows the lens, and degrades the sharpness a bit.

Message edited by author 2005-07-26 11:55:50.

Prof_Fate

07/26/2005 12:06:24 PM · #21

Do you have a budget? Have you looked at the prices of the suggestions here?

I have the Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 AP0 Super 2 w/ macro. There is a new DG version (probably a better choice) and a cheaper non-APO version, avoid it).
macro shot, handheld

telephoto shot, handheld

Great lens for hte money.

The canon 70-200 4L is very very good, but at $550 is more than twice the price. Add in a 1.4x extender and you have 3 or more times the money tied up in it - and i'm not so sure when the 1.4x is in there it will be all that much sharper at the long end.

The canon 70-200 2.8 is $1600+. If you have that kind of budget, jsut go buy it. There is hte Sigma 70-200 2.8 for about $850. With a 2.8 lens you can add a 1.4 or 2x extender, but you wil be over a grand by then as well.

ramevi

Sony Alpha a7 II

Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f1.8 ZA

07/26/2005 01:26:48 PM · #22

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

The canon 70-200 4L is very very good, but at $550 is more than twice the price. Add in a 1.4x extender and you have 3 or more times the money tied up in it - and i'm not so sure when the 1.4x is in there it will be all that much sharper at the long end.

This was taken with 70-200f4l and a sigma 2x ex teleconverter. Using a 1.4x tc you'll get really sharp results.

benhur

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

07/26/2005 01:43:39 PM · #23

I have both the canon and the tamron 70-300 lenses and the tabron is a lot slower to focus, but the macro on it is a bonus.
Tamron is a lot cheaper than the Canon.

art-inept

Olympus C-5060WZ

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

07/26/2005 01:53:31 PM · #24

i dont know much about these two lenses but you can read a lot of user reviews at FM

PhantomEWO