1 optics / haptics / processing
Quality Moderately make both the Canon original, as well as the Tamron lens a very high-quality impression. The chosen materials, but also the processing is on an almost identical level. The pleasant rubberized zoom and focus rings run smoothly and without jerking. Also the resistance is pleasant, not too tight and not too loose. Nevertheless, the Canon Zoom makes at first glance just move more. The white color and the red ring are still at a premium of photographers, where prestige and performance are important. But quite apart from the prestige, are the hard facts for me and there are for me envious glances of other canonists not included. Both lenses are supplied with a sturdy metal bayonet and a lens hood. Something acclimatization is needed for die-Canon-users when using the Tamron, because on the one hand, the zoom indicator extends exactly in reverse to Canon lenses and the other are the zoom and focus ring reversed when other L lenses contemplates. But since I come from the former Konica-Minolta-bearing, this presented no obstacle or a decision is. When weight Tamron is one step ahead, it is but a few grams lighter than the Canon L. problems, outgoing self Tubussen do not exist, to both zooms are running too tight (what it looks like after a few years of use, of course is impossible to say).
2. Equipment
As mentioned before, both lenses metal connector and hood offer (Canon: Standard aperture, Tamron: petal-shaped lens hood), the aperture of the Tamron very lush fails, which has led many times to interested looks and questions. Furthermore, both have a counterparty Ulraschall autofocus (with Canon Ring USM called at Tamron USD) which for a very fast and accurate and works very quietly done for his service to others. Differences are only very marginally determine. The Canon is perhaps a bit faster, but the Tamron applies also in bad light frequently the targeted point. In addition, Canon and Tamron have their professional optics (L or SP Series) equipped with adequate special glasses, avoid image errors or to mitigate. But more about that in the "image quality". Important in the telephoto zoom is the image stabilizer. Here, neither of them makes a real weakness. Nevertheless, you have to clearly favor the Tamron. Although the Bar is a bit louder than that of the Canon, but he nailed the picture literally in the viewfinder (and thus also on the sensor) firmly. It is impressive how the Tamron engineers have the effect done their homework. With a steady hand, succeed a steady shots to 1/40 second ... and at no less than 300mm focal length (equiv. 480mm KB)! To record video, however, both stabilizers are less suitable because they produce but the occasional stuttering when the Stabi "follow suit". The biggest plus point in terms of equipment made the Canon in sealing against moisture and dust, since it completely comes as all L lenses Weatherproof. Nevertheless, can be found after several months of use on the Tamron no dust inclusions and drizzle has the objective has not harmed even though it is not officially designated as weatherproof.
3. Image Quality
Probably the most important point. Unlike entry-level zoom, like the Canon 55-200, the Canon 70-300 IS (excluding L), the Sigma 70-300 APO or the old Tamron 70-300, you can both lenses a clear gain in image quality recorded , The sharpness of the lens is at extremely high levels and achieved at all apertures (yes, even at maximum aperture 4 to 5.6!) Almost single focal length level; Fade thus brings no real improvement more. A winner can not make here, as both lenses show the same outstanding performance. Aberrations are also very well corrected. Here, the Canon has a small lead. Even with the greatest contrast edges no chromatic aberrations (chromatic aberration - purple fringing) could be enforced. However, the Tamron is not bad here. Only really extreme light-dark boundaries show a slight color fringing. This is, however, only be guessed at 100% view and corrected in 1min in Photoshop. But stopping down by 1 EV solves any CA issues (which you can not even call it that). Normally CAs occur but not on. Distortion is barely perceptible in both lenses. A slight barrel shape is at the short end to guess at 70mm ... but nothing more. Since both lenses are suitable for full-frame, but the crop (APS-C sensor) have been tested, the vignetting does not matter. It is simply not visible. Neither the long, even on the short end; neither at full aperture, nor dimmed. Flares and ghosting hold also very limited. When the hood is attached this reflection errors pose no problem. In remote shutter then the Canon tends ehr to the flare, even if only a very small extent. Also crucial for many photographers is the bokeh. Although aperture 4 to 5.6 are not exactly light Stark and therefore not ideal for a good blur, so helping one nevertheless the large focal length and the full aperture suitability of lenses to beautiful blurred backgrounds. Although the differences only marginally and therefore "bleating at a high level" are, the Tamron is located in the area a little better Bokeh by. Whether it is due to the rounded 9 blade diaphragm (Canon 8), I can not say. Anyway, it seems a bit softer and more comfortable than that of the Canon. In terms of color, the Tamron represents slightly warmer than the Canon. The Canon acts here neutral, but also cooler. However, the color remains then but ehr a matter of taste and I like the warmer tone of Tamron.
4. Conclusion
The Tamron is a truly remarkable lens, which is in no way behind the more expensive Canon hide multiple needs. Artifacts are limited, or to put it better; No errors occur in normal everyday photograph. The processing is at a similar level as in Canon's L-series, even if only plastic is processed. The sharpness is very good in all focal areas. And also contrasts and colors makes the lens to 300mm are very good, which is not necessarily common to zoom in this focal length range. Although the Canon in some areas a little touch recognized advantage for itself and is certainly more prestigious than a Tamron "Made in China", so I find no justification for the extra cost. Tamron SP 70-300 proves the USD that you can build high quality lenses in a very fair price framework.
Would recommend this to look any ambitious hobby photographers and semi-professional. Even newly promoted who are not satisfied with the picture quality of the kit-zooms, you can put this lens without hesitation to my heart. The images will certainly benefit, especially since you can see really noticeable differences from low Kitlinsen and must not only speak of theoretical improvements. True professionals and full-time photographers will for reasons of prestige, Canon loyalty and weatherproof well but ehr pick up the red L-ring.
The only weak point, both at Canon, as well as Tamron, the light intensity remains. It is provided with aperture 4 to 5.6 is not particularly high and makes the lenses in low light conditions only conditionally recommendable (with higher ISO but also works the ... the AF had anyway despite weak luminosity few problems).
Why it has now become the Tamron? It offers approximately the same performance as the Canon, is even better in a few points. There is a clear and noticeable especially visible and rise from the low entry League (Canon 55-200 / 70-300 IS, Sigma 50-200 / 70-300, Tamron 70-300 old) with which one can quite work professionally. In addition, it costs only a fraction of the L lens. And Tamron puts with the warranty of 5 years (!) Nor a hammer on it, even if you have to register for it forcibly. It's simply an unbeatable offer for a class price-performance ratio.
Best regards Oliver
