M Vers wrote:
Even if the new Tamron matches the L in terms of IQ the L still offers superior build (namely weather sealing) and I'd think* it would focus quicker/more accurately as well. In any case I still don't understand all the hating on this lens--it's certainly not for everyone.
That woud be absurd, who the hell pays that much just for weather sealing, haha you can buy 3-4 spare tamrons for safety instead!
IMO unless the IQ is better too, this lens is dead. (personally I expect the IQ will be better)
M Vers wrote:
I can't argue as to the cost of the lens, which is high--then again it is new and those who feel the absolute need for it will have to pay the price if they want it now. I think the cost of the lens has a lot to do with the introduction of higher density sensors, which essentially extend the lens' effective reach (which is why you see the 70-300L priced so close to the 100-400)--Just wait until we see other long lenses, especially those over 300mm. We'll see how long it remains where it is in terms of cost...it could very well drop considerably. ...Show more →
yeah but come on, the 70-300L is the SAME price as the 70-200 2.8 IS MkII!!! the 70-200 uses so much more and so much more fancy glass and considering the IQ it produces it's not like they used a cheap out design and manufacturing tolerances on the 70-200 either
skibum5 wrote:
yeah but come on, the 70-300L is the SAME price as the 70-200 2.8 IS MkII!!! the 70-200 uses so much more and so much more fancy glass and considering the IQ it produces it's not like they used a cheap out design and manufacturing tolerances on the 70-200 either
skibum5 wrote:
That woud be absurd, who the hell pays that much just for weather sealing, haha you can buy 3-4 spare tamrons for safety instead!
IMO unless the IQ is better too, this lens is dead. (personally I expect the IQ will be better)
Absurd to you and others maybe, but not so much for those who depend on those features. If you were going backpacking would you honestly want to bring a few Tamrons? And no, its not just for weather sealing--as I said AF should* be better as well, especially if the Tamron does not take advantage of x type points.
I think* most people are disappointed that Canon came out with yet another 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 lens (how many versions of these do they really need) while ignoring the aging 100-400mm lens or some others.
I want a 200-400mm zoom. Only not like Nikon's at 7 pounds. If it could be lighter and a stop or two faster than the 100-400mm that would be my killer must-have lens.
Canongarcon wrote:
Is build quality worth an extra $1,000+? Tamron usually makes pretty good lenses.
I think* most people are disappointed that Canon came out with yet another 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 lens (how many versions of these do they really need) while ignoring the aging 100-400mm lens or some others.
I'm sure the other 7*-300's days are numbered. As for it being 'worth it', that depends entirely on the individual--to some it is.
alrac wrote:
I want a 200-400mm zoom. Only not like Nikon's at 7 pounds. If it could be lighter and a stop or two faster than the 100-400mm that would be my killer must-have lens.
You dont seem to understand how this works. 400mmf5.6 needs to be 72mm , add a stop it needs to be 100mm, f2.8 needs to be 143mm.
That size means weight, unless canon make it out of titanium and DO lenses...
RobDickinson wrote:
You dont seem to understand how this works. 400mmf5.6 needs to be 72mm , add a stop it needs to be 100mm, f2.8 needs to be 143mm.
That size means weight, unless canon make it out of titanium and DO lenses...
Well if it were to be spec'd as an f/4 lens it can be lighter than Nikon's version--a lot lighter in fact. Look at the new 300/2.8 II and 400/2.8II as examples. Of course, a stop 'or two' faster will not help in this regard (or in terms of cost)
Nah. I went to the dark(er) side and have the new Nikon 28-300VR. Which is no 70-200 but, probably much like the Tamron, is sufficient for my needs.
If I were shooting for money, then I agree that it's usually worth it to spend the extra for even marginal improvements in IQ, when that is sometimes all it takes to make the difference in a sale or published photo etc...
I had 2 Canon L lenses and they were both great, totally reliable and I NEVER questioned the IQ I got from them.
Just like the difference if any, or how small, between the new Sigma 85 and the Nikon 85G or Canon 85L- for some it's worth it and even necessary. I bought the Sigma
Yeah, I still like that lens a lot just a small glitch for now .
geniousc wrote:
Sorry to hear that, you're covered with the 6 year warranty though. IME I have had few if any 3rd party lenses that didn't include some agravating annoyance. Some had major problems like a Sigma 50 that I sent back 3 times and finally ended up returning.
I'm an L addict, I have most of them, and I don't own any 3rd party lenses, other than the new Tamron. In most cases 3rd parties can't compete but in this case the Tamron is the winner in my book. First and foremost excellent image quality... But also very important to me, for this lens, is the weight. As this will be my landscape/travel telephoto, I will regularly be packing this lens up mountains, sometimes many miles, often on foot, etc... So to carry a lens that is heavy must be heavy for a reason. I have my 70-200 Mark II when I need fast. But heavy AND slow? No go... A center crop from my wonderful, lightweight and reasonably priced Tamron 70-300VC wide open at 300mm:
.