Canon 70-200mm f/4 L USM IS vs. Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6

[Kryptix]

My mate paid £70 for his Tamron, and the Canon cost about £1k... Here's the results.

Look past the processing. You can still tell the quality of the shot.

Canon:

Tamron:

Canon:

Tamron:

Canon:

Tamron:

Canon:

Tamron:

So... Worth the extra cash?

How can I get the most out of my lens?

 

[apkent]

Presumably you're all the Canon and he's all the Tamron.

Most look better from the Canon anyway - more dynamic. In those that look better on the Tamron it looks purely down to the chosen camera settings and technique.

 

[kiteninja]

When you buy L glass doesn't automaticly make a better picture, ok it'll have faster AF, Silent motor, better optics IQ and all that jazz but at the end of the day its mostly person behind the camera that does the work if you don't have to right settings etc.. you wont get as good a shot as you should do with such nice glass.

Bad workman blames his tools

How can I get the most out of my lens?

Practice using the camera, get to know the settings, take lots of shots and see which ones come out good, then refine on the ones that where good by altering the settings etc...

I get better through practice.

 

[walls]

I'd send the canon back, it's vingetting really badly. The 70-200 f4 IS is a class act, razor sharp, great contrast, bottom line is you need to practice.

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

I'd say this is a fine example of the canon being better - but is it 1300% better, that's the price increase you paid but I don't think from these it was worth it over the tamron

Also Kryptix, why do you mark all of your threads with an exclamation mark?

 

[fletch5]

hi kryptix, to be fair it looks like camera settings, but it would help with unprocessed shots from each to see the differences easier

 

[u8myufo]

I cannot really see the point of this post, unless you have or have owned both lens only you could decide which is the better choice. Were they both taken with identical camera`s? Were they both taken at the same focal length? Were the aperture, shutter speed, white ballance and any other settings identical? Looks to me as though you were both in slightly different positions, therefore the light falling onto the subject is also going to be different for each shot. Imo if the answer to any of those questions is no, then you cannot compare. Yes in theory the L lens should be the better choice, but then the difference is something that could always be processed (if you know your stuff) to be as good as or even better than a shot taken with a more expensive lens. You get the best of what you can afford in this world. Simple as.