Bias

[HDNitehawk]

Dave if that is the case look at the ISO charts again, it looks to me that the Tamron is arguably a bit better than the Non L IS 70-300mm.

I say arguably because in different parts of the frame one or the other might be a bit ahead.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Dave if that is the case look at the ISO charts again, it looks to me that the Tamron is arguably a bit better than the Non L IS 70-300mm.

I say arguably because in different parts of the frame one or the other might be a bit ahead.

Sorry, I didn't intend to derail iND's thread!

I should have been more clear. I'd agree that the 100, 135, and 200mm shots look like you would expect and are equivalent to 70-300 IS, but the Tamron 300mm shots in the center fall off and, IMHO, are clearly in the poor range. You're right that the 70-300 IS is poor at 300mm in the mid-frame and corners, but looks decent for the price point in the center.

I hesitate to post other people's pictures in forum threads (but it's family right?), but IMHO this is a pretty good result for a $350 lens for a 2298 x 1532 crop at 300mm length likely SOOC without any unsharp mask, etc... applied.

(This is the Tamron 70-300 VC)


IMG_3379 by kmohr60, on Flickr

Dave