Originally Posted by
arthurking83
My first guess would be "you get what you pay for".
So I had a quick look at what TDP(The Digital Picture) think of the lens ...
Thought so.
All these 70-300 type lenses can be mediocre(ish) to a degree.
But, I've been checking them out for a while now trying to find as much info on them as I can.
I used to have a Sigma 70-300mm and got OK(enough) images at certain settings.
usually 300 mm is not worth bothering with(depending on demands of the images at that focal length).
Some of these lenses are labelled 'macro' and you wouldn't bother with that feature.
I found the Sigma 70-300 was good up to about the mid 200 mm FL. IQ was 'usable' up to about that setting. Even stopped down at 300mm it's soft.
Same with Tamrons.
When I went into the store to get my Tamron 70-200/2.8 I thought I might try out the Tamron 18-270mm super zoom and also the (old version) 70-300mm(not the current USD version).
18-270 wasn't worth the effort(I think) and 70-300 could get some half decent images I think. But due to the slow apertures you need a lot of ISO to make them work too.
In comparing how each of those lenses work relative to each other, I've been looking into as many reviews of them as I can.
And in doing so, I'm thinking that Canon's 70-300 IS II looks to be pretty good, followed by Tamron's 70-300mm VC USD in that lens model type.
When I was getting my Tammy 24-70VC, I also tried out the Tammy 70-300 lens(as well as the T70-200/2.8) in the store. It was quite dim in there, and ISO was pushed up into the high range on the D800 on thee f/2.8 lens!
ISO was way too high to assess the IQ of the 70-300 VC USD lens, but I could just see that it resolved OK. ISO value killed the resolution tho.
I have no idea how much a Canon 70-300 IS II retails for, but I'd be looking that way, or if the price is a bit over budget, then a Tammy 70-300 VC USM.