Tamron 70-300 vs Canon L?

[Johnb317]

Probably a stupid question...  Was at the local camera shops big show this weekend and was talking lenses with the Canon reps.
Whether to go with the 70-200 f4L or the 2.8 L ver.   He suggested the 70-300L f4-5.6  (1300.00)
Tamron guy suggested their 70-300 SP whatever  after rebates etc. 330.00  (tax included)... in a moment of craziness I bought it, but have 14 days to return.

Part says... only 330, the other says wait till I can afford the additional 1000.00 (ouch)   
I primarily shoot the 5DII, 24-105L  and like it, but would like a little longer.   I shoot in and outdoors, people/landscapes etc.   Not too much on animals as it's hard to shoot a bow at the same time.   

Thoughts?

[Alchase]

I am no expert, but everything I have read and everyone I know that has the 70-200 f2.8 L, says it one of the best lenses if not the best lens they have ever used. I have never used a Tamron lens, but you can get the Canon Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens on Amazon for $1149.00

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Lens-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000I1X3W8/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1370874024&sr=1-4&keywords=canon+ef+70+200mm

[popeshawnpaul]

Everyone gets tempted and makes the 3rd party lens mistake at some time (I have done it).  There are some that are good values and about equal the name brand, such as a sigma macro lens.  There is an ok sigma 50mm lens.  By and large, they are inferior and eventually, if your photography progresses, you'll learn to hate the limitations of the lens.  An f5.6 lens indoors isn't very useful whether Canon or not.  Having that extra stop or two would be handy.  If you don't need the reach, a 70-200 in the f2.8 flavor seems more suitable...

[quadrafire]

The canon 70-200 f2.8 is twice as heavy as the Tamron
canon 1570g (27oz), tamron 765g.(55oz)

[Smokepole]

The Canon L Zooms are nice and durable, quiet, fast focusing, and sharp as a tack.  I have a Tamron 28-70 that I like for taking portraits & product photos.  That particular Tamron is a great lens, but not as durable as the Canon L lenses.  If you splurge and buy the Canon F2.8 L, you will love it.  If you don't have that kind of money, do what I did and buy a Canon f4L and use a doubler.  The F4L is an awesome lens, but not quite as fast.  I don't take many shots in flat light, so I don't need the speed.  Besides, with the cameras now days, you can crank up the ISO and still get awesome shots.   

[huntnphool]

Stick with the Canon.

[brianb231]

Not a camera guy but My hunting partners Son is into photography and he is selling the following:

I'm selling my Canon T1i kit with extended battery pack, a camera bag and a 50 mil lens for $325. Let me know if you're interested!

Let me knowif you want more info on this.

Regards,

Brian

[huntnphool]

Not a camera guy but My hunting partners Son is into photography and he is selling the following:

I'm selling my Canon T1i kit with extended battery pack, a camera bag and a 50 mil lens for $325. Let me know if you're interested!

Let me knowif you want more info on this.

Regards,

Brian

You should probably post it in the classifieds.

[brianb231]

Not a camera guy but My hunting partners Son is into photography and he is selling the following:

I'm selling my Canon T1i kit with extended battery pack, a camera bag and a 50 mil lens for $325. Let me know if you're interested!

Let me knowif you want more info on this.

Regards,

Brian

You should probably post it in the classifieds.

I am not really active in selling it. It was just a coincidence that  a few minutes ago I heard My friends son was selling his and then I read this thread. Thought I would share.

[Smokepole]

Bb231 maybe you could post in the classifieds, and forward contact info for anyone interested.  Great camera & someone here might want one for taking field shots.

[brianb231]

Will do, IT cant hurt right.


Thanks

Brian

[Don Fischer]

Over on 24 hr campfire in the photography section is a Tamron Rep. No need to ask him about len's, he will recommend a Tamron. But dig through and find some of his photo's, terrific. I think how much you plan on shooting with a len's should help figure out what one you get. Then your own skill level. Take someone like me and I take photo's I like to look at and tech things in the photo I seldom see. A nice photo to me is a nice photo. I can't see the things in a photo well enough to get critical with a photo. A high dollar lense would probably be wasted on me. So would it on you? I have a 55-300 Nikon lens, not high dollar at all and I have a 70-300 Sigma, again even less of a high dollar lense.Both take photo's that satisfy me. What I do have a pretty good grasp on is the difference between $350 and $1000! Most pro's say go with the camera manufacturer's len's and usually the more they are, the better they like them. Seem's that most really good photographer's chase that elusive perfect photo but most everything I look at of their's is perfect. Even if you do it for money, how perfect does the photo need to be? The things that one guy doesn't like about a photo, a really good photographer tears apart and 98% of the rest of the people think it's great. Most people thing a good photo is only made by a good camera; the old "You must have a camera" ploy we all like to hear.

You can invest a lot of money into lense's that take better photo's than you do or you can spend a lot less on a like lense from an after market maker that takes photo's most people think are great. With the difference you can buy another good lense.

[huntnphool]

Over on 24 hr campfire in the photography section is a Tamron Rep. No need to ask him about len's, he will recommend a Tamron. But dig through and find some of his photo's, terrific. I think how much you plan on shooting with a len's should help figure out what one you get. Then your own skill level. Take someone like me and I take photo's I like to look at and tech things in the photo I seldom see. A nice photo to me is a nice photo. I can't see the things in a photo well enough to get critical with a photo. A high dollar lense would probably be wasted on me. So would it on you? I have a 55-300 Nikon lens, not high dollar at all and I have a 70-300 Sigma, again even less of a high dollar lense.Both take photo's that satisfy me. What I do have a pretty good grasp on is the difference between $350 and $1000! Most pro's say go with the camera manufacturer's len's and usually the more they are, the better they like them. Seem's that most really good photographer's chase that elusive perfect photo but most everything I look at of their's is perfect. Even if you do it for money, how perfect does the photo need to be? The things that one guy doesn't like about a photo, a really good photographer tears apart and 98% of the rest of the people think it's great. Most people thing a good photo is only made by a good camera; the old "You must have a camera" ploy we all like to hear.

You can invest a lot of money into lense's that take better photo's than you do or you can spend a lot less on a like lense from an after market maker that takes photo's most people think are great. With the difference you can buy another good lense.

One major difference, or consideration, is that when you purchase a pre owned Canon L series, you can use it for a couple years and sell it to upgrade, with a much better depreciation factor. I doubt I would lose a dime if I were to sell my lenses right now, compared to what I paid for them. In fact, looking on eBay, I would make a decent profit on a couple of them, I seriously doubt that happens with most of the Tamron/Sigma etc lenses, which to me makes the decision a no brainer.

[Bean Counter]

IMHO, if you compare binoculars to a camera lens, camera lenses are a much better deal. Lenses strike me as far more mechanically sophisticated than binos, yet we will drop up to $2k on them. Even if you don't have that chunk of change, you probably know that you get what you pay for. I've heard that the off brands, at least Tamron, may even offer vibration compensation, but it doesn't compare to Nikon or Canon's image stabilization. I've heard it sucks. I don't own any Tamron lenses. 

Yesterday I just sold my third Canon branded lens. I bought all three lenses that I sold used and was patient to find a good deal on them. I was also patient while they were listed on Craigslist to wait until the right buyer came along. as it turns out, I bought these lenses used, enjoyed using them, and then sold them for MORE money than I paid for them. Try doing that with a Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc...

[huntnphool]

IMHO, if you compare binoculars to a camera lens, camera lenses are a much better deal. Lenses strike me as far more mechanically sophisticated than binos, yet we will drop up to $2k on them. Even if you don't have that chunk of change, you probably know that you get what you pay for. I've heard that the off brands, at least Tamron, may even offer vibration compensation, but it doesn't compare to Nikon or Canon's image stabilization. I've heard it sucks. I don't own any Tamron lenses. 

Yesterday I just sold my third Canon branded lens. I bought all three lenses that I sold used and was patient to find a good deal on them. I was also patient while they were listed on Craigslist to wait until the right buyer came along. as it turns out, I bought these lenses used, enjoyed using them, and then sold them for MORE money than I paid for them. Try doing that with a Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc...

Case and point!