Tareq Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Well, this is never gonna help me to decide anything, so let's talk about each point for better details and clarifications.
1. Filter issue? ok, i have Canon TS17 and also Samyang, and both you know needs that different than standard filter threads, so if i am fine with those then definitely i can be fine with any lens that has no filter threads, i already have the filters[6x6-6x8], so if i get that Tamron then i need only filter ring or adapter, the holder i will try with what i have already, if not then buy new one, there are so many filter holders cheap out there, so any another filter issue than those? please let me know
2. Weight, also not an issue, sometimes i feel keep complaining about things that making me to think about why then those brands making DSLRs or lenses that big, can't we all use 200gm lenses and 800gm cameras so we don't go much more than 1KG as total? is that photography fun? major keep ...... about weight of this and weight of that, when once i bought Canon 100 macro in the past in 2006 i thought it was so heavy, then bought 24-70 and i was laughing on 100, once i bought 70-200 i felt that 24-70 is a toy and nothing, but still people keep moaning about 24-70, 16-35, even 70-200 weight, in sports using 300 2.8 i 99% handholding it, i have a monopod but never felt comfortable using it and i've got more keepers shots handheld than using monopod, so Tamron 15-35 is a bit bulkier than say 16-35 or 17-40 or slightly more than 14-24 is also a joke for me.
3. Price, this is a main factor, for that i narrowed my choices to 16-35 f4 and Tamron 15-30, i can add Canon 16-35 2.8 mkII but this is almost outdated and less sharpness than Canon f4 and Tamron so it is also out, i can't afford 11-24 at the moment, and from some recent reviews it shows that Tamron has an edge winner over the legendary Nikon 14-24, and Nikon is also pricey, so that made it down to 16-35 f4 and Tamron one.
4. Now between the narrowed two, it comes the story or comparison of 2.8 vs. f4, both lenses has stabilizer though, so it also comes down to only f2.8 vs. F4. From another forums one member or 2 swear that although that f4 is way sharper than another lenses but it is not way way better than as they said Canon 16-35 f2.8II, now Tamron 15-35 is better optically than 16-35 f2.8II, so it means that quality of Tamron is almost near if not better or same to 16-35 f4, now, how much that f4 IS stops better than VC?
honestly speaking, i have some lenses with f2.8 and f4-f5.6 with and without IS, and with f2.8 lenses i never wish if i have IS, but with f4 and above lenses and IS i always wish if i have f2.8, not all my shots i want to go slower than 1/60, and from what i hear if i shoot stars or astro then f2.8 or wider is the way to go, actually i have a plan in the future to travel around and put astrography as my main subject to do beside landscapes, so it means i may look for f2.8 version.
I have Samyang 14, so this may keep me away of Tamron 15-30, but, if i love that Samyang 14 then it means i will like this Tamron more than Canon 16-35 f4IS, somehow i may have fun with f2.8 subjects more than IS just to have more steady less blur shots if i use slower speed, i really hate to use slower shutter speed handheld, if somehow i will go to 1/10 or a bit slower then i will stop shooting or use tripod as i will not enjoy that shot even i must shoot, if i shoot for others then they don't care how blurry it is, but most of my shots are for higher speed and lower ISO and i do have 1DX, so i tend to depend more on f2.8 than IS actually, even with my 70-200 which is f2.8 and IS i tend to use f2.8 more than its IS, but people here and there killing me about IS of 16-35 F4 as that much good than f2.8, now can that IS give same bokeh of 2.8 too?
The question is, how much i will miss f2.8 if i buy Canon 16-35 f4IS, and what i will miss if i buy Tamron? Really tough question, also i already mentioned that i may buy one lens and buy another later next year, but this maybe not a good idea, i never heard about how good IS is until this 70-200 mkII and this Canon 16-35 F4, in the past sounds IS wasn't good enough, now i really not sure if i have to change my mind about f2.8 vs. IS with current new technology.
|