Tamron 70-300 vs hiring canon lens.
Discussion
vtecstu said:
IanMorewood said:
Dont want to be nasty to Tamron but they are crap.
OT, but as a newbie are Tamron and Sigma comparable, or are Sigma generally of a higher standard (albeit not even close to Canon / NIKON lenses)?If you look on http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/ you can see a list of Canon, Tamron and Sigma lenses. Like most things in life I guess you get what you pay for but there are probably some pearls in the Tamron/Sigma lists which are worth buying, they're not all budget lenses like the 70-300.
vtecstu said:
OT, but as a newbie are Tamron and Sigma comparable, or are Sigma generally of a higher standard (albeit not even close to Canon / NIKON lenses)?
Tamron produce some decent lenses but have only just started to introduce good focusing motors (ultrasonic wave type/HSM/USM).Take each lens on its own merits along side the manufacturers rep.
As for the OP - rent a 100-400L.
The Tamron isn't very good.
I bought the Tamron 70-300 bundled with my 400d and struggled with it for a couple of years.
Finally replaced it with the EF 70-300 f4/5.6 IS and it's worlds apart, much sharper, better colurs, IS is great. I went from being happy with 20% of my telezoom photos to 80%.
From what I hear the 70-200 Ls or the 100-400 L are another order of magnitude better.
I bought the Tamron 70-300 bundled with my 400d and struggled with it for a couple of years.
Finally replaced it with the EF 70-300 f4/5.6 IS and it's worlds apart, much sharper, better colurs, IS is great. I went from being happy with 20% of my telezoom photos to 80%.
From what I hear the 70-200 Ls or the 100-400 L are another order of magnitude better.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff


