Quote Originally Posted by bburns223
For what? Is your 300 f/4 not long enough for
wildlife? I absolutely hate to say this, but there is a possibility that
you're just not close enough. That refers me to the Robert Capa quote
which states the same thing.

You know, it isn't unusual for a wildlife photographer to want reach. Sometimes one can't get as close as one wants to. Is there something wrong with that?


Quote Originally Posted by Sheiky
probably you're better of cropping your image taken with a 300mm prime than buying a lesser quality zoom.

Is that based on speculation or evidence? (I'm not attacking you: it's perfectly okay if it is speculation. But if it isn't, I would like to know what evidence you're basing this on.) It is rare for a lens that is that much longer to do worse than a cropped shorter one (that's speculation []).


If the Tamron really is worse than a cropped 300mm f/4, then I agree that the 300mm f/4 is preferable.