Pixel Perfect Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On
|
RobertLynn wrote:
I wonder if it will resolve better than the 24-70L? That seemed to be a complaint in a lot of people's eyes with the 21MP sensor coming out.
While I always look at the Tamron and Sigmas, I can never bring myself to buy one. Not because they aren't good. Actually, there's 2 pros around here, that they only have Tamron in their bags (by pros, I mean someone who has weddings booked for around a year +, makes an enormous sum of money, and does a crap load of portraits too) and they get very good results.
I always steer clear, because in my head if say the Tamron 28-75 is X amount of dollars, and the Canon 24-70 is double, if the Tamron was better like I've been told, no one would buy the Canon, or Canon would be forced to down the price, or release a better product. In a way, life is you get what you pay for, and in a way it's not.
Not to throw another guitar story out there, but a few years back, a USA Jackson Soloist cost an arm and a leg less than a USA Gibson Les Paul, and lb. for lb. the craftsmanship, components, and overall quality of the cheaper Jackson, was better than the Les Paul. So while I know you can spend less, and get more, I don't know if it'll apply in this case.
Quite honestly, I'd love for the off brands to be just as good as the Canon/Nikon. Means I could buy more stuffs! 
The Tammy is a superb lens and IQ wise is right up there with the L. They are 1/3 the price and just over half the weight. The reason people still buy the L are AF speed, build, perception of quality with the L label and the extra 4mm at the wide end is significant. I own 7 L lenses, but after seeing how good the Tammy was for the money I just couldn't bring myself to buy the L. I did try one and my Tammy was much better wide open. I'd love it if the Sigma was even better as that would mean it's very good and would have better build and much faster AF.
|