July 23, 2014, 06:35:31 PM

Author Topic: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.  (Read 14605 times)

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2652
    • View Profile
70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« on: January 24, 2011, 06:31:58 PM »
Popped into a camera store today, to look at the 70-300L IS USM ($1549) and the Tamron 70-300 VC Di ($449).

What do you get extra for $1100?

Heavy white paint.

The image stabilisation on the Tamron feels about as good as that on the new Canon and the IQ is similar too.

There's now no point in buying the 70-300IS USM (non-L).

canon rumors FORUM

70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« on: January 24, 2011, 06:31:58 PM »

UngerPhotography

  • Guest
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2011, 07:40:12 PM »
Popped into a camera store today, to look at the 70-300L IS USM ($1549) and the Tamron 70-300 VC Di ($449).

What do you get extra for $1100?

Heavy white paint.

The image stabilisation on the Tamron feels about as good as that on the new Canon and the IQ is similar too.

There's now no point in buying the 70-300IS USM (non-L).

Have you compared the image quality between the 70-300L and 70-300 Di DV yourself? I don't doubt that the Tamron is a good lens for the price, but I do find it hard to believe that it could come even close to the 70-300L.

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2652
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2011, 07:45:08 PM »
Popped into a camera store today, to look at the 70-300L IS USM ($1549) and the Tamron 70-300 VC Di ($449).

What do you get extra for $1100?

Heavy white paint.

The image stabilisation on the Tamron feels about as good as that on the new Canon and the IQ is similar too.

There's now no point in buying the 70-300IS USM (non-L).

Have you compared the image quality between the 70-300L and 70-300 Di DV yourself? I don't doubt that the Tamron is a good lens for the price, but I do find it hard to believe that it could come even close to the 70-300L.

The 30-second review on the back of the camera showed little that I could discern between the two - at least in the center of the frame. I'll look more closely later when I load them up into LR.

UngerPhotography

  • Guest
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2011, 08:55:18 PM »


The 30-second review on the back of the camera showed little that I could discern between the two - at least in the center of the frame. I'll look more closely later when I load them up into LR.

Wow, I have to take your word for it then.

Sorry, but testing camera gear for 30 seconds in a store isn't much to go off of.

Do your homework and read reviews, look at sots taken out in the elements and talk to others online who have used it.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2011, 08:57:40 PM by UngerPhotography »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13519
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2011, 10:26:16 PM »
Popped into a camera store today, to look at the 70-300L IS USM ($1549) and the Tamron 70-300 VC Di ($449).

What do you get extra for $1100?

Heavy white paint.

The image stabilisation on the Tamron feels about as good as that on the new Canon and the IQ is similar too.

There's now no point in buying the 70-300IS USM (non-L).

The 30-second review on the back of the camera showed little that I could discern between the two - at least in the center of the frame. I'll look more closely later when I load them up into LR.

I think CRguy has a category tailor-made for this post:

From the Land of Crazy!
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2652
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2011, 03:32:26 AM »


The 30-second review on the back of the camera showed little that I could discern between the two - at least in the center of the frame. I'll look more closely later when I load them up into LR.


Wow, I have to take your word for it then.

Sorry, but testing camera gear for 30 seconds in a store isn't much to go off of.

Do your homework and read reviews, look at sots taken out in the elements and talk to others online who have used it.


Loading the pictures into LR, the 70-300L has no perceptible chromatic aberration whereas it is visible with the Tamron. However, the Tamron's IQ leaves the old 70-300IS USM from Canon in the dust. (This was all at f/5.6, 300mm)

In terms of sharpness, I can find very little if nothing between the new 70-300s from Canon/Tamron.

So I'll stick with my conclusion that there is no longer any reason to buy the Canon 70-300IS USM f/4-5.6 because not only is the Tamron cheaper ($449 vs $549), but it is far superior in terms of IQ (I believe it lives up to Tamron's claims of being best in its class.) The only reason you would want to buy the Canon 70-300IS USM is if you wanted to say that you only had Canon lenses and/or could not stand the reverse rotation for zoom/focus.


btw, as for "reviews", photozone doesn't have one and neither does dpreview...

There's one here:
http://www.demystifyingdigital.com/Digital-SLR/Tamron-SP-AF-70300mm-Di-VC-Lens-Review/index.aspx
... that agrees with my conclusion.

DXOMark gives it 17 (on Nikon D3s), however DXOMark also scores the Sigma 70-300 APO DG at 21 (on D3s) and that's half the price of the Tamron.

The review here:
http://www.popphoto.com/lens-test/2010/11/lens-test-tamron-sp-70-300mm-f4-56-divc-usd-af
has nothing bad to say but they do not have a 70-300L review for comparison.

Another review here:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/tamron/sp-70-300mm-f40-56-di-vc-usd/tamron-sp-70-300mm-f40-56-di-vc-usd-lens-review.html
is also troubled to find anything to complain about.

So what do you get for the $1100 premium for the 70-300L?
Heavier white paint, less to zero CA and the name Canon.

If you don't believe it, find a store to do some tests for yourself.

bopie

  • Guest
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2011, 12:08:08 PM »
-snip-

I misread a few posts. sorry.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 12:14:11 PM by bopie »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2011, 12:08:08 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13519
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2011, 01:13:04 PM »
Popped into a camera store today, to look at the 70-300L IS USM ($1549) and the Tamron 70-300 VC Di ($449).

There's now no point in buying the 70-300IS USM (non-L).


Ok, so I agree with your thread title about the Canon 70-300mm IS (non-L).  Looking at a comparison of those two lenses at 70mm f/4 and at 300mm f/5.6, the Tamron is better (although neither is good at 300mm).

But, you are really talking about 3 (4 counting the Sigma) different 70-300mm lenses here, and you also seem to be saying that buying the new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens is pointless.  Or do I misinterpret the '$1100 for white paint' comment?  (Oh, and you forgot to mention weather sealing.)

When TDP compares the Tamron 70-300mm to the new Canon L zoom, at 70mm f/4 the Tamron is a bit sharper across the frame (surprising, but the Tamron is reportedly a very sharp lens.  But, at 300mm f/5.6 (which is where you took your test shots) the Tamron lens looks, well, like crap, and the Canon is still quite sharp.   

So, are you saying that in your hands, the Tamron performed as well as the new Canon 70-300 L, or just better than the old Canon 70-300 non-L, or both?  If it's the latter, maybe you can show some 100% crops to back that up?  I know Bryan at TDP has a careful setup and from his testing, as you can see in the links above, the Canon L zoom is fairly similar to the Tamron at the wide end of the range (kudos to Tamron), but the Canon L is clearly better than the Tamron 70-300mm starting from 135mm onwards (which seems to result from degradation in the Tamron's performance as you zoom in, while the Canon stays sharp).
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 01:14:56 PM by neuroanatomist »
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

kubelik

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
    • a teatray in the sky
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2011, 01:59:35 PM »
DXOMark gives it 17 (on Nikon D3s), however DXOMark also scores the Sigma 70-300 APO DG at 21 (on D3s) and that's half the price of the Tamron.

I've said this elsewhere before, and I know it's hard to believe, but due to Sigma's wildly inconsistent quality, there are actually some ridiculously sharp Sigma 70-300 APO DG lenses out there.  I bought one, and the sharpness when shooting birds, mounted on my old 30D, was really impressive.  however, I've seen others that were really quite miserable
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 02:08:19 PM by kubelik »

kubelik

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
    • a teatray in the sky
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2011, 02:10:20 PM »
looking at Bryan's charts, I see the same thing as neuro.  what's maybe even more concerning are his preliminary comments regarding focus accuracy ... any time you hear those words regarding a telephoto ... yikes

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2652
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2011, 02:34:38 PM »
Popped into a camera store today, to look at the 70-300L IS USM ($1549) and the Tamron 70-300 VC Di ($449).

There's now no point in buying the 70-300IS USM (non-L).

Ok, so I agree with your thread title about the Canon 70-300mm IS (non-L).  Looking at a comparison of those two lenses at 70mm f/4 and at 300mm f/5.6, the Tamron is better (although neither is good at 300mm).

But, you are really talking about 3 (4 counting the Sigma) different 70-300mm lenses here, and you also seem to be saying that buying the new 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens is pointless.  Or do I misinterpret the '$1100 for white paint' comment?  (Oh, and you forgot to mention weather sealing.)

Well, given that the new Tamron is significantly better than the non-L Canon and is significantly cheaper, the question needs to be asked, what do you get for $1100?

Quote
When TDP compares the Tamron 70-300mm to the new Canon L zoom, at 70mm f/4 the Tamron is a bit sharper across the frame (surprising, but the Tamron is reportedly a very sharp lens.  But, at 300mm f/5.6] (which is where you took your test shots) the Tamron lens looks, well, like crap, and the Canon is still quite sharp.   

So, are you saying that in your hands, the Tamron performed as well as the new Canon 70-300 L, or just better than the old Canon 70-300 non-L, or both?  If it's the latter, maybe you can show some 100% crops to back that up?  I know Bryan at TDP has a careful setup and from his testing, as you can see in the links above, the Canon L zoom is fairly similar to the Tamron at the wide end of the range (kudos to Tamron), but the Canon L is clearly better than the Tamron 70-300mm starting from 135mm onwards (which seems to result from degradation in the Tamron's performance as you zoom in, while the Canon stays sharp).

I'll upload some fragments of the shots I took. I see what you mean about TDP showing the L being much better than the Tamron/non-L. Part of me wonders there is variation in the samples... I'll add that I wasn't shooting test patterns so that will make it harder to judge how good it is/was because in none of the shots I took was the entire image in the same focal plane...

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2652
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2011, 02:39:34 PM »
looking at Bryan's charts, I see the same thing as neuro.  what's maybe even more concerning are his preliminary comments regarding focus accuracy ... any time you hear those words regarding a telephoto ... yikes

This may be no different to the stories around the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 where people say there are "good copies and bad copies" - which speaks more to the variability in Tamron's manufacturing process.

But at $400 after rebate, the Tamron is a very compelling buy...

kubelik

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
    • a teatray in the sky
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2011, 02:54:41 PM »
This may be no different to the stories around the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 where people say there are "good copies and bad copies" - which speaks more to the variability in Tamron's manufacturing process.

But at $400 after rebate, the Tamron is a very compelling buy...

absolutely; for the price it is worth buying.  I think the new Canon 70-300 L would be a lot more compelling if it had a MSRP lower by $200 or $300; essentially replacing the 70-300 DO.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2011, 02:54:41 PM »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2652
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2011, 09:52:13 AM »
ok, i was going to upload a couple of pics but various tools don't make it easy to select the middle 500x500 region of a pic.

kubelik

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
    • a teatray in the sky
Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2011, 12:36:42 PM »
ok, i was going to upload a couple of pics but various tools don't make it easy to select the middle 500x500 region of a pic.

dilbert, do you have photoshop?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-300IS USM (non-L) now pointless.
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2011, 12:36:42 PM »