Please help, I am very torn between these 2 lenses in my budget. I am looking for a telephoto lens to use primarily outdoors for photos of my 3 year old, husband playing football and longer focal length candids. By I don't want to rule out using it indoors totally. I understand neither of these are fast lenses and I don't need VC/IS for running/sport but for the candids when I don't have my tripod with me and for wildlife ie family visits to the zoo etc VC/IS would be very useful. The IS version of the Canon is waaaay out of my budget.
How do the two lenses compare in terms of IQ, contrast, sharpness, AF speed and accuracy? I know I can bump the ISO indoors for the Canon to try and increase my shutter speed to help prevent camera shake but I don't really want to go above ISO 800. Do you think I will struggle not having IS/VC indoors?
I have tried the Tamron (only in a shop) and I was really surprised with what the VC allowed me to hand hold. But I don't want to loose IQ/sharpness/contrast for the sake of VC.
Has anyone compared the two?
I decided on the Tamron and Canon 70-200 F4 L USM (non-IS) and not the Canon 70-300 USM IS because of build quality and being non rotating to use filters. In the UK the prices differ slightly: the Tamron new is £329 and the Canon 70-200 F4 L USM (non-IS) used is selling for about £429 (I could not afford it new), different than the $350 and $709. I wish I could afford the 135mm F2!