I think the tamron 200-500 may be the best 500 mm image one could get for $500, even when accounting for 1.4x, 2x, and upres options on shorter options (available for $500 or less).
I suppose the best candidates would be starting with the 70-200 F4 or the 70-300 IS (non-L), but I doubt they could beat the tamron at 500mm.
I think the company representative was asking the interviewer why he was spinning the lens around on the table. His reply had something to do with the fact that it is hard to do an interview about a lens and look interested unless the company representative was more attractive. In turn, the company representative kept his cool and politely asked the interviewer to stop sticking the microphone in his face (and again to stop twirling the lens around as it was the only prototype he had and did not want to risk having the darn thing fly off the table).
Well my French isn't very good...but that's the best I could do. No need to thank me, just trying to be a helpful FMer.
rongoe wrote:
I think the tamron 200-500 may be the best 500 mm image one could get for $500, even when accounting for 1.4x, 2x, and upres options on shorter options (available for $500 or less).
I suppose the best candidates would be starting with the 70-200 F4 or the 70-300 IS (non-L), but I doubt they could beat the tamron at 500mm.
$500 for the Tamron 200-500 seems like a very good deal. That price is not the ebay norm. The average offering is about as expensive as the Canon 400 mm 5.6 L.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
28--75 had the IQ for sure, but it's body and AF is not in the same league as the L glass. Hard to fault for $400 though. Had mine for several years. Build of newer 24-70 is better and now they have VC and PZD (USM).
Bigma is not at it's strongest past 300mm, not that it's bad, just could be better. Let's hope Tamron has worked to ensure the long end of the zoom is good, as that's always the bug bear with most zooms.
This is the reason I'd like to see a new long prime rather than a zoom. A 500mm 5.6 or 600mm 6.3 would be more likely to have better IQ. Also, it would be lighter, easier to manufacture and thus less expensive.
Cadaver wrote:
This is the reason I'd like to see a new long prime rather than a zoom. A 500mm 5.6 or 600mm 6.3 would be more likely to have better IQ. Also, it would be lighter, easier to manufacture and thus less expensive.
the flip side of that is the market would be smaller , as most 'normal ' (ie not those that hang around here ) people would only really look at a zoom (due to percieved flexibilty) so it would be more expensive .
That sure does look pretty sharp to me.But on a 1D series thats almost an 800mm lens. Granted on a full frame, its still only a 600, but thats a lot of lens for $1500.00 ,If thats what it will cost. Pretty much the same price as a Canon 100-400, and from the images I've seen so far pretty close image quality as well.
I hope it does well, sure has me interested. Definately more interesting than a 200-400 for almost $12,000, thats for sure.
Those images look fairly equal to 100-400 images. This is looking good. Price TBD of course. Canon better put out their new 100-400 soon or I may switch to this if final user testing holds up. I'd rather stick with Canon and would pay over $2000 for a new 100-400 if IQ is improved a lot and it has 4 stop IS.
Imagemaster wrote:
If you are talking about a used price, say so. New, it is $950 at B&H.
In my first post, I indeed noted I was referring to used prices.
I bought mine for $490 here on the FM buy/sell, albeit about 5 years ago. Maybe I got a particularly good deal. I didn't much comparison shopping.
But even if the used price is $600, I think the same claim holds. Also, I was doing an apples to apples comparison since comparable canon glass was based on used prices around $500 (such as the 70-200 F4).
The Sigma and Tamron f/6.3 lenses lie about their aperture to the camera and says it's f/5.6, so it should report f/8 with a 1.4 TC and still AF on certain cameras. Imagemaster wrote:
Right, and then it will not be great.
Even if Canon brought out a 500 f5.6 prime for $3,000, I bet it would outsell the 500 f4 by a hundred to one. Any so-called cannibalization of 500 f4 sales, would easily be offset by profits on sales of the f5.6 prime.
Besides, over 95% of those buying a $3,000 500 f5.6 lens have no intention of ever spending over $10,000 on a 500 f4, IMO.
Imagemaster wrote:
Even if Canon brought out a 500 f5.6 prime for $3,000, I bet it would outsell the 500 f4 by a hundred to one. Any so-called cannibalization of 500 f4 sales, would easily be offset by profits on sales of the f5.6 prime.
Besides, over 95% of those buying a $3,000 500 f5.6 lens have no intention of ever spending over $10,000 on a 500 f4, IMO.
Agreed. To me the only thing that should matter is the bottom line, not how it's achieved. If you can sell 10000 500 f/5.6 lenses @ $3K and say 1000 500 f/4 lenses @ $10K, that's a lot more income than 2000 500 f/4 lenses.
