arbitrage wrote:
My order is in but don't have a price or date yet. Just got on a "list"
Oder in with whom? B&H is not taking orders yet. The Camera Store in Calgary has not replied to my email as to when and how much. Henry's or Vistek don't have any info posted.
Imagemaster wrote:
Oder in with whom? B&H is not taking orders yet. The Camera Store in Calgary has not replied to my email as to when and how much. Henry's or Vistek don't have any info posted.
arbitrage wrote:
My order is in but don't have a price or date yet. Just got on a "list"
Yes I too am on a list, actually first on a list at a very reputable Camera Store. Though I don't have firm pricing either the pricing I am aware of is just fine
Less than $1100!?!?
I had high hopes that this would be a high quality lens with decent IQ, but that pricing makes me think that it will be similar to the 200-500 in both respects. Even the 200-500 without VC cost about the same price.
I guess at that price, even if it's just decent, it might be worth a try. Initially, my yardstick for comparison was going to be my Canon 100-400, but I have my doubts now.
How many think that the low price is an indication that it won't perform well?
Imagemaster wrote:
Oder in with whom? B&H is not taking orders yet. The Camera Store in Calgary has not replied to my email as to when and how much. Henry's or Vistek don't have any info posted.
They already replied to my email from this AM. I'm on the list. That is at TCS. I have spent a lot with them though so I have a little street cred when I email my contact.
arbitrage wrote:
Not me, I've seen the MTF, I've seen the samples, the AF is the BIG question for me, not the IQ.
Don't the MTFs look similar for the Tamron 200-600 and 150-500 at the longest FL?
I never owned one, but I was under the impression that the 150-500 didn't have very good IQ.
I was hoping for something closer to the Canon 100-400 in IQ, which is now a 15 year old lens.
surf monkey wrote:
Less than $1100!?!?
I had high hopes that this would be a high quality lens with decent IQ, but that pricing makes me think that it will be similar to the 200-500 in both respects. Even the 200-500 without VC cost about the same price.
I guess at that price, even if it's just decent, it might be worth a try. Initially, my yardstick for comparison was going to be my Canon 100-400, but I have my doubts now.
How many think that the low price is an indication that it won't perform well?
In perform well do you mean mechanically or optically? Maybe it would have been better to say the MSRP is $3995 and then the doubters would be confused
IMO their name is on it, and it is labeled as an SP model which sets the tone for their 'superior performance' series and it wouldn't make sense to have this show up as a dud. It could have been labeled differently to differentiate it as a lower grade lens.
Remember how much of the price is geared to the fact of it being an f/6.3 not an f/4 or f/2.8!
Just checked the Nikon 800 price, a mere $18k..............how do you justify that price??
Other thoughts.................what one pays for a lens and what one nets in reselling it later can also be a smart part of a good bargain. The better glass holds its value until technology improves the electronics and mechanics, good glass is good glass
Karl Witt wrote:
Remember how much of the price is geared to the fact of it being an f/6.3 not an f/4 or f/2.8!
Just checked the Nikon 800 price, a mere $18k..............how do you justify that price??
It's more of an institutional lens I suppose. Also, the 1.25x TC is thrown in for free.
EB-1 wrote:
It's more of an institutional lens I suppose. Also, the 1.25x TC is thrown in for free.
EBH
Oh, missed the TC..................now I want one
Heck, it's no secret would love to have an experience with any equipment I can
I'm thinking that the used Canon 800's at $8999 are super bargains now!
surf monkey wrote:
How many think that the low price is an indication that it won't perform well?
How many think that Canon and Nikon telephotos are overpriced and that they have not been the least concerned about all the photographers wanting less expensive options
surf monkey wrote:
Don't the MTFs look similar for the Tamron 200-600 and 150-500 at the longest FL?
I never owned one, but I was under the impression that the 150-500 didn't have very good IQ.
I was hoping for something closer to the Canon 100-400 in IQ, which is now a 15 year old lens.
The proof is in the pudding, not MTF's. We are talking about quality per dollar. The IQ of the Tamron 200-500 was quite impressive at 500mm for the price:
"It won't be a lens for everybody but it is likely to be a lens for many to benefit from" As you said Karl it may not be a lens for everybody, but at that price it may be the lens that at least everyone can afford.
If it is a pretty good lens for the price, it'll be doing something else as well, taking business away from Canon. No it won't bother those who can afford the expensive lenses.
But theres a huge amount of people out there who could never afford those anyways (me included), and thats money in the bank for a company who could fill that niche. So in a sense Canon is already behind.
So the real question is do they just want to let that part of this market slip away ?
Imagemaster wrote:
How many think that Canon and Nikon telephotos are overpriced and that they have not been the least concerned about all the photographers wanting less expensive options
What does Canon and Nikon pricing have to do with my question?
I was simply asking if the low price of the Tamron is an indication of how it will perform (mostly as it pertains to IQ)?
I would love lower priced options than the Canon superteles, and I will probably try the Tamron 200-500, but my expectations are lowered now considering Tamron's previous supertele zoom and the similar pricing.
Imagemaster wrote:
The proof is in the pudding, not MTF's. We are talking about quality per dollar. The IQ of the Tamron 200-500 was quite impressive at 500mm for the price:
Now that's what I want to see. Very nice.
Thank you imagemaster for posting these. I never saw much in regards to IQ from the earlier Tamron that looked impressive. How is the sharpness when looked at more closely, especially when printed large?
Also, have you shot that lens on a full frame DSLR?
If the new lens is close to my Canon 100-400 in terms of IQ, I will be pleasantly surprised.
I'm hoping that the lens will give those who can't afford the big white lenses not just reach, but good IQ as well.
arbitrage wrote:
MTFs comparison between the 100-400 and the new Tamron. If you ask me, the Tamron looks like the winner...
MTFs are one thing. Real world photos are another.
I'll still be surprised if it performs as well as the Canon, but I'd love it if it did.
Even if it's close, that would be a major achievement for Tamron, especially at this price point and focal length.
With imagemaster's 150-500 examples and a second look at the MTFs, my interest is renewed.
C-Net has just confirmed price of $1069. They said Tamron announced the pricing today (Sunday). I don't see any Tamron press release with pricing so this must have been verbal.
hoodlum90 wrote:
C-Net has just confirmed price of $1069. They said Tamron announced the pricing today (Sunday). I don't see any Tamron press release with pricing so this must have been verbal.
Actually for a brief time the price was on the Tamron site in their press release then the price was removed?
Glad to see some reinforcement that the price is MSRP $1069!
but don't have a price or date yet. Just got on a "list"
