To me: I am a person who decides purchasing decisions by "good feeling" when testing and evaluating the results and not in the laboratory. I like working and as often as possible away from the studio and here I create my yardstick. My tests I conducted with a Canon 650D and 5D III. In my closet I have lenses from different manufacturers.
What I was looking for:
- Telephoto to 300mm
- With Image Stabilization
- Fully compatible format
- Faster, more accurate AF (main reason: My 3-year-old daughter ;-))
- The most compact construction method, as easily as possible
- The highest possible imaging performance (goes without saying)
For Tamron:
Haptics / processing:
The lens is really good in the hand and is built -measured my Vorstellungen- compact. I also have the weight, compared to my Canon 70-200 2.8 perceived as very pleasant. Exactly what I'm looking for. Overall, I would have loved to have a black lens, because I feel as unobtrusive (the extended length of not taking into account).
Operation, functionality and image performance:
The Tamron applies, which is reflected also on the basis of several reviews, as a modern and powerful lens. That is the impression I kannn confirm in all respects. Basically, this lens has all the preferences that I put on a telephoto zoom, optimally met. The lens does a really solid impression. The image stabilizer accesses courageously.
Courageously means that you tap the shutter and takes the stabilizer with a jerk with his work. I really mean that in general towards not negative. The stabilization works cleanly and nailed the picture really tight.
I have read in various places that the lens is loud, but what I can confirm at no point for me. Also, the AF works quickly and neatly. I have read several times of slow, which I can not confirm. Here, however, is one of the few points where I need to hum. Likewise, concerns the image quality. Suits at extremely high levels, but what I want to discuss later.
Why did I picked up the Canon:
I'm here to submit no detailed review for Canon L-optics, explain just my own personal motivations and dare a narrowly-defined comparison. The Canon lens is constructed as usual incredibly massive. Here can not be compared. The difference in weight for Tamron was negligible for me personally. Both lenses I would as a "compact" mean for this class. Up to this point so alone already because of the price for me Tamron front. Now come the details.
The Canon has an image stabilizer which engages butterweich the action and consistently, but not relentlessly carries out his work. For me Canon is the clear winner.
The AF: daylight, walk, or City Zoo ... The Tamron AF works fast, reliably and precisely. I could find neither front nor back focus. Here the Tamron would win me alone because of the price. But since I frequently take pictures with natural light in a given range of photography (and that is not always bright), I just had to try and borderline situations. Light can be replaced only with light and when it is exposure time. That should be a clear case of a 4-start panel. Here are both manufacturer par. In my tests, the Tamron device but unfortunately often the pumps, or finds only no F- point and engages into the void. Very sad, but for me one of the weightiest reasons KO. Sure ... it does not always have AF, but it must nevertheless very happy. Canon delivers impressive work here. A reliable as possible AF is for me in person but absolutely of fundamental importance. The clear winner so Canon.
As for the speed and overall accuracy (even in daylight) of AF, Canon also has the nose clear front. This difference I would actually can get over good, or I would pay the difference output alone due to the speed difference by no means. Tamron power and it was again said- really good job !!!
Picture quality and contrast ratio can be described as really good in both present me Ojektiven in all focal length ranges. Who complains here ... at least has a different opinion, the one I also sincerely like to concede. I for one am excited about what can make this telephoto zoom.
However ... the bokeh ... and the picture in detail reaches my stomach much more at Canon. Technically, it's justified, but I did not like here speak. But even that is in my opinion absolutely a posture and application question. There is always the question of what benchmark you put in and what areas to work with.
What else has made me hum, the switch for AF and stabilizer are. These switches are very smoothly at Tamron. I have had a couple of times the problem that I have switched unnoticed by AF in MF. At Canon, I have the problem so far.
In sum it can be said that the Canon is a good deal anywhere near the front. This piece you pay of course. There are the Canon glass some more technically advanced, on which I do not go into here. Consider also always the price difference and the manufacturer's target audience.
I really recommend to objectively test and interrogate the personal opine. I feel with my decision well, the pain of separation with respect to the charge is dissipated quickly. The Tamron is a really good, highly recommended glass, with more than ordinary power. For me it is without a doubt the price / value for money. I give the Tamron therefore like 5 star.
I would not have the opportunity to me to opt for the Canon L-variant and the "need in detail" for my application recognized, I would certainly have struck at Tamron. I'm sure that you can be happy with the Tamron long years when the one-noted by me "criticisms" do not disturb.
