This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 201070-300 IS L came
p.8 #170-300 IS L came
EB-1 wrote:
Is that at 300mm?
EBH
That one is 70mm, ISO 400, f4. Others are 300mm.
myy001 wrote
JPG from the camera 5d2 + 730L:EBH
That one is 70mm, ISO 400, f4. Others are 300mm.
Nov 17, 2010 at 10:46 PM
p.8 #270-300 IS L came
schristie11 wrote:
Does the new L have MUCH faster AF than the consumer lens thoug?
This is of major importance to many photographers, including me.
The AF speed is the main thing that keeps pruists from using
the Tamron 28-75 2.8 over the Canon 24-70 2.8L which is nearly $1000 more.
I think it is significantly faster compared to EF 70-300 IS, which I had before.
Does the new L have MUCH faster AF than the consumer lens thoug?
This is of major importance to many photographers, including me.
The AF speed is the main thing that keeps pruists from using
the Tamron 28-75 2.8 over the Canon 24-70 2.8L which is nearly $1000 more.
I think it is significantly faster compared to EF 70-300 IS, which I had before.
Nov 17, 2010 at 10:48 PM
p.8 #370-300 IS L came
Raining today, can only tok some in the mall:
http://mxjkqg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p-mdpILl8pD9DWFuxsQpOBa9hyfGMp6yxZFeIXZ5db67duXEHWU0fHk4x3FqubwKv0FQwA0Cut07MjrVHV4C_VyRbjDmIqOrm/l7.jpg
http://mxjkqg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p-mdpILl8pD9DWFuxsQpOBa9hyfGMp6yxZFeIXZ5db67duXEHWU0fHk4x3FqubwKv0FQwA0Cut07MjrVHV4C_VyRbjDmIqOrm/l7.jpg
Nov 18, 2010 at 12:09 AM
p.8 #470-300 IS L came
geniousc wrote:
I think you get what you pay for in most cases assuming the manufacturer doesn't misrepresent his product. The price should be based on manufacturing cost and percieved value. I doubt the lens will be a dud. Tamron lenses are often packed with plastic elements and mostly plastic components. I admit they can be optically quite good. I think that build quality is everything, how long do you think the Tamron will last? Will it stand up to daily usage?
My tamron 17-50 is going fine after 4 years of hard use so far.
I have a consumer kit EF zoom from 1987! that still works 100% perfectly!
I wouldn't go to crazy about a lens falling apart unless it is an L (aside from canon 50mm 1.4 and maybe 70-300 IS).
I think you get what you pay for in most cases assuming the manufacturer doesn't misrepresent his product. The price should be based on manufacturing cost and percieved value. I doubt the lens will be a dud. Tamron lenses are often packed with plastic elements and mostly plastic components. I admit they can be optically quite good. I think that build quality is everything, how long do you think the Tamron will last? Will it stand up to daily usage?
My tamron 17-50 is going fine after 4 years of hard use so far.
I have a consumer kit EF zoom from 1987! that still works 100% perfectly!
I wouldn't go to crazy about a lens falling apart unless it is an L (aside from canon 50mm 1.4 and maybe 70-300 IS).
Nov 18, 2010 at 12:33 AM
p.8 #570-300 IS L came
M Vers wrote:
This is undoubtedly very important for some. But I have to agree that the price seems to high.
I had a suspicion that this lens was going to replace the 100-400L. For a couple of years now, rumor has been circulating that a Mk2 was coming out. This never proved true. However, this looks like it just may happen -
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/10/ef-100-400-version-2-coming-cr2/
If the 70-300L is $1,600, I hate to see what the new 100-400 Mk2 is going to sell for.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.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 eitherWhere can you get the 70-200II for $1500?!
the 70-200 inlcudes the tripod collar while it is a $250+shipping+maybe tax extra for the 70-300L (plus the bare 70-300L is $1600 not $1500)
skibum5 wrote
M Vers wrote
Aaron D wrote
M Vers wrote
the L still offers superior build (namely weather sealing) and I'd think* it would focus quicker/more accurately as well.I had a suspicion that this lens was going to replace the 100-400L. For a couple of years now, rumor has been circulating that a Mk2 was coming out. This never proved true. However, this looks like it just may happen -
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/10/ef-100-400-version-2-coming-cr2/
If the 70-300L is $1,600, I hate to see what the new 100-400 Mk2 is going to sell for.
the 70-200 inlcudes the tripod collar while it is a $250+shipping+maybe tax extra for the 70-300L (plus the bare 70-300L is $1600 not $1500)
Nov 18, 2010 at 12:36 AM
p.8 #670-300 IS L came
M Vers 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.
My tamron 17-50 has gone everywhere and works fine still.
skibum5 wrote
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.IMO unless the IQ is better too, this lens is dead. (personally I expect the IQ will be better)
My tamron 17-50 has gone everywhere and works fine still.
Nov 18, 2010 at 12:36 AM
p.8 #770-300 IS L came
myy001 wrote:
those do look pretty solid, nice microcontrast
what f/stop, focal length though?
if that is 300mm f/5.6 that would be pretty impressive
that looks closer to my 70-200 f/4 IS than to my tamron 70-300 VC
Edited on Nov 18, 2010 at 12:42 AM · View previous versions
those do look pretty solid, nice microcontrast
what f/stop, focal length though?
if that is 300mm f/5.6 that would be pretty impressive
that looks closer to my 70-200 f/4 IS than to my tamron 70-300 VC
Edited on Nov 18, 2010 at 12:42 AM · View previous versions
Nov 18, 2010 at 12:39 AM
p.8 #870-300 IS L came
schristie11 wrote:
Does the new L have MUCH faster AF than the consumer lens thoug?
This is of major importance to many photographers, including me.
The AF speed is the main thing that keeps pruists from using
the Tamron 28-75 2.8 over the Canon 24-70 2.8L which is nearly $1000 more.
i wouldntbe shocked if it is faster but i really doubt the difference be as large as tamron 28-75 (one of the slowest lenses of all time when it comes to AF) vs the 24-70 speed
Does the new L have MUCH faster AF than the consumer lens thoug?
This is of major importance to many photographers, including me.
The AF speed is the main thing that keeps pruists from using
the Tamron 28-75 2.8 over the Canon 24-70 2.8L which is nearly $1000 more.
i wouldntbe shocked if it is faster but i really doubt the difference be as large as tamron 28-75 (one of the slowest lenses of all time when it comes to AF) vs the 24-70 speed
Nov 18, 2010 at 12:40 AM
p.8 #970-300 IS L came
skibum5 wrote:
This is undoubtedly very important for some. But I have to agree that the price seems to high.
I had a suspicion that this lens was going to replace the 100-400L. For a couple of years now, rumor has been circulating that a Mk2 was coming out. This never proved true. However, this looks like it just may happen -
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/10/ef-100-400-version-2-coming-cr2/
If the 70-300L is $1,600, I hate to see what the new 100-400 Mk2 is going to sell for.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.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 eitherWhere can you get the 70-200II for $1500?!the 70-200 inlcudes the tripod collar while it is a $250+shipping+maybe tax extra for the 70-300L (plus the bare 70-300L is $1600 not $1500)
The 70-200II came down several hundred bucks in the months since its release. Should we not expect the 70-300L to follow the.same path? Maybe $1200 or something like that early next year.
M Vers wrote
skibum5 wrote
M Vers wrote
Aaron D wrote
M Vers wrote
the L still offers superior build (namely weather sealing) and I'd think* it would focus quicker/more accurately as well.I had a suspicion that this lens was going to replace the 100-400L. For a couple of years now, rumor has been circulating that a Mk2 was coming out. This never proved true. However, this looks like it just may happen -
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/10/ef-100-400-version-2-coming-cr2/
If the 70-300L is $1,600, I hate to see what the new 100-400 Mk2 is going to sell for.
The 70-200II came down several hundred bucks in the months since its release. Should we not expect the 70-300L to follow the.same path? Maybe $1200 or something like that early next year.
Nov 18, 2010 at 12:40 AM
p.8 #1070-300 IS L came
dwweiche wrote:
I had a suspicion that this lens was going to replace the 100-400L. For a couple of years now, rumor has been circulating that a Mk2 was coming out. This never proved true. However, this looks like it just may happen -
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/10/ef-100-400-version-2-coming-cr2/
If the 70-300L is $1,600, I hate to see what the new 100-400 Mk2 is going to sell for.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.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 eitherWhere can you get the 70-200II for $1500?!the 70-200 inlcudes the tripod collar while it is a $250+shipping+maybe tax extra for the 70-300L (plus the bare 70-300L is $1600 not $1500)The 70-200II came down several hundred bucks in the months since its release. Should we not expect the 70-300L to follow the.same path? Maybe $1200 or something like that early next year.
maybe, i won't even think of giving it a look unless it does
if it does and the quality holds up to the promise of the crops above i might well be willing to sell my 70-200 f/4 IS for it (but it's hard to imagine giving up the 70-200 f/4 IS it is so amazing, but it would be nice to get 300mm without TC on/off nonsense for the times I am without the fancy 300 2.8 and other stuff)
skibum5 wrote
M Vers wrote
skibum5 wrote
M Vers wrote
Aaron D wrote
This is undoubtedly very important for some. But I have to agree that the price seems to high.I had a suspicion that this lens was going to replace the 100-400L. For a couple of years now, rumor has been circulating that a Mk2 was coming out. This never proved true. However, this looks like it just may happen -
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/10/ef-100-400-version-2-coming-cr2/
If the 70-300L is $1,600, I hate to see what the new 100-400 Mk2 is going to sell for.
maybe, i won't even think of giving it a look unless it does
if it does and the quality holds up to the promise of the crops above i might well be willing to sell my 70-200 f/4 IS for it (but it's hard to imagine giving up the 70-200 f/4 IS it is so amazing, but it would be nice to get 300mm without TC on/off nonsense for the times I am without the fancy 300 2.8 and other stuff)
Nov 18, 2010 at 12:46 AM
p.8 #1170-300 IS L came
skibum5 wrote:
those do look pretty solid, nice microcontrast
what f/stop, focal length though?
if that is 300mm f/5.6 that would be pretty impressive
that looks closer to my 70-200 f/4 IS than to my tamron 70-300 VC
Yes, I only use wide open. This one is300 mm.
http://mxjkqg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pNJ2FnYaS_5gilLyF7Dzalv8BuCenGlX4CcJMfIHWnlExPzeZDvJWbBD9nMDCvu84HEQL-nrWN852c8NRPLr8lAMQ0HO2hUn0/l8.jpg
Edited on Nov 18, 2010 at 02:18 AM · View previous versions
myy001 wrote
what f/stop, focal length though?
if that is 300mm f/5.6 that would be pretty impressive
that looks closer to my 70-200 f/4 IS than to my tamron 70-300 VC
Yes, I only use wide open. This one is300 mm.
http://mxjkqg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pNJ2FnYaS_5gilLyF7Dzalv8BuCenGlX4CcJMfIHWnlExPzeZDvJWbBD9nMDCvu84HEQL-nrWN852c8NRPLr8lAMQ0HO2hUn0/l8.jpg
Edited on Nov 18, 2010 at 02:18 AM · View previous versions
Nov 18, 2010 at 12:54 AM
p.8 #1270-300 IS L came
myy001 wrote:
those do look pretty solid, nice microcontrast
what f/stop, focal length though?
if that is 300mm f/5.6 that would be pretty impressive
that looks closer to my 70-200 f/4 IS than to my tamron 70-300 VCYes, I only use wide open. This one is 200mm, 8.1 m away, f5.0, 1/30 sec. I accidently set IS = 2 for alomost all day.
http://mxjkqg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pNJ2FnYaS_5gilLyF7Dzalv8BuCenGlX4CcJMfIHWnlExPzeZDvJWbBD9nMDCvu84HEQL-nrWN852c8NRPLr8lAMQ0HO2hUn0/l8.jpg
yeah it does seem to do amazingly well then at 200mm, looks actually as good as a 70-200 f/4 IS! and I think noticeably better than tamron 70-3000VC
skibum5 wrote
myy001 wrote
what f/stop, focal length though?
if that is 300mm f/5.6 that would be pretty impressive
that looks closer to my 70-200 f/4 IS than to my tamron 70-300 VC
http://mxjkqg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pNJ2FnYaS_5gilLyF7Dzalv8BuCenGlX4CcJMfIHWnlExPzeZDvJWbBD9nMDCvu84HEQL-nrWN852c8NRPLr8lAMQ0HO2hUn0/l8.jpg
yeah it does seem to do amazingly well then at 200mm, looks actually as good as a 70-200 f/4 IS! and I think noticeably better than tamron 70-3000VC
Nov 18, 2010 at 01:21 AM
p.8 #1370-300 IS L came
VERY interesting review! Against the 70-200 f/4 IS!
http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2010/11/17/canon-70-300-f4-5-6-l-is-review-vs-70-200-f4-l-is/
I was looking through it and becoming ever more and more amazing as it took down the 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm! Even wide open! Noticeably so!
And then it took it down again at 135m!
And then it even took it down at 200mm!
The 70-200 f/4 IS has been fabled for being prime like at 135mm and above for sharpness and micrcontrast the new 70-300L beat it! (granted though it can't do 200mm at f/4 or 4.5 which is a bit of a big deal)
And I mean the micro-contrast/color actually looked better than the fabled 70-200 f/4 IS over the entire 70-200 range wide open (where it could hit the same wide open) and at no aperture was it ever worse!
BUT....
oh noes!
at 300mm it seemed to relatively drop off the cliff!!
failing to even quite match the 70-200+TC!?! and even by f/8 only sorta tying it!
the bokeh is pretty shitty too as I had expected
Well OTOH it looks like there is no fear in having to give up even a trace of image quality over the 70-200 range! And, in fact, it actually seems to have even better contrast/color/pop and just about the same or better sharpness than the fabled 70-200 f/4 IS!
OTOH you do end up giving up a big 2/3 stops 155-200mm or 1/3 stop worse than some earlier hopes based upon filter size and lens fatness.
OTOH you never have to fiddled with TC on and off which gets to be such a pain you often just don't bother or you leave it on and compromise wider end image quality.
OTOH to not even be able to match the 70-200+TC at 280mm is kinda awful for a $1600 (with no collar) lens.
If not for this one thing this lens would really seem to be a stunning thing indeed.
One odd thing is that his 70-200+TC shots almost seemed better than his bare lens without the TC?! That just seems odd. Normally you can see a clear drop off with the TC on (even if it does pretty well still).
Still, if it comes down in price a bit you can get your 70-200 quality plus 200-280mm without pain in the neck constant swapping at the price of more weight and a trace loss of quality at 280mm and a heft 2/3 stops lost at 155-200mm and maybe a touch loss of bokeh quality. If not for the slight 280mm loss thing it might be a better overall option for quite a few, if certainly not everyone by any means. Even as is it is still tempting since you don't native bare lens IQ if you sell you 70-200. It is VERY disappointing to not have done better at 300mm though and to not even quite match the 70-200+TC combo.
Going by those results the quality should handily beat the tamron from 70-200mm and probably up to a good 250mm after which, sadly, it seems like it might merely only do about the same.
If the 300mm was a little better this lens would appear to be an utter stunner, as is, it's still impressive in many ways and yet the thing it adds (300mm reach) it doesn't do that amazingly well and comes at price of noticeably more weight and slower speed in the middle range and, for now at least, stunningly more $$$$.
The scary thing is the 1.4x TC MkIII may be much better than the MkII so might, oddly enough, you end up with the 70-300L doing better than the 70-200L over 70-200 and the 70-200L+TC doing noticeably better at 280mm!! That would be most bizarre! And suddenly is the 70-300L worth it anymore? If you can get a better 280mm from teh 70-200 and that lens still gives a 70-200 of a quality level nobody complained about before plus you use the TC with your super-tele or perhaps somethng else you might have. hmmmmmmm.......
Anyway this is just one test.
Also he didn't look at the edges at all.
EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!: I jsut realized he shot a bill, which means you may have shot somewhat close in where the 70-200 f/4 IS stinks! Maybe this is why it beats it at the short to mid end and loses at the longest end
Maybe at normal landscape/wildlife distance the results would have nothing to do with these at all?
the 70-200 f/4 IS does way better over 15' and you really want to at least make to not be anywhere near MFD.
Edited on Nov 18, 2010 at 02:01 AM · View previous versions
http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2010/11/17/canon-70-300-f4-5-6-l-is-review-vs-70-200-f4-l-is/
I was looking through it and becoming ever more and more amazing as it took down the 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm! Even wide open! Noticeably so!
And then it took it down again at 135m!
And then it even took it down at 200mm!
The 70-200 f/4 IS has been fabled for being prime like at 135mm and above for sharpness and micrcontrast the new 70-300L beat it! (granted though it can't do 200mm at f/4 or 4.5 which is a bit of a big deal)
And I mean the micro-contrast/color actually looked better than the fabled 70-200 f/4 IS over the entire 70-200 range wide open (where it could hit the same wide open) and at no aperture was it ever worse!
BUT....
oh noes!
at 300mm it seemed to relatively drop off the cliff!!
failing to even quite match the 70-200+TC!?! and even by f/8 only sorta tying it!
the bokeh is pretty shitty too as I had expected
Well OTOH it looks like there is no fear in having to give up even a trace of image quality over the 70-200 range! And, in fact, it actually seems to have even better contrast/color/pop and just about the same or better sharpness than the fabled 70-200 f/4 IS!
OTOH you do end up giving up a big 2/3 stops 155-200mm or 1/3 stop worse than some earlier hopes based upon filter size and lens fatness.
OTOH you never have to fiddled with TC on and off which gets to be such a pain you often just don't bother or you leave it on and compromise wider end image quality.
OTOH to not even be able to match the 70-200+TC at 280mm is kinda awful for a $1600 (with no collar) lens.
If not for this one thing this lens would really seem to be a stunning thing indeed. One odd thing is that his 70-200+TC shots almost seemed better than his bare lens without the TC?! That just seems odd. Normally you can see a clear drop off with the TC on (even if it does pretty well still).
Still, if it comes down in price a bit you can get your 70-200 quality plus 200-280mm without pain in the neck constant swapping at the price of more weight and a trace loss of quality at 280mm and a heft 2/3 stops lost at 155-200mm and maybe a touch loss of bokeh quality. If not for the slight 280mm loss thing it might be a better overall option for quite a few, if certainly not everyone by any means. Even as is it is still tempting since you don't native bare lens IQ if you sell you 70-200. It is VERY disappointing to not have done better at 300mm though and to not even quite match the 70-200+TC combo.
Going by those results the quality should handily beat the tamron from 70-200mm and probably up to a good 250mm after which, sadly, it seems like it might merely only do about the same
.If the 300mm was a little better this lens would appear to be an utter stunner, as is, it's still impressive in many ways and yet the thing it adds (300mm reach) it doesn't do that amazingly well and comes at price of noticeably more weight and slower speed in the middle range and, for now at least, stunningly more $$$$.
The scary thing is the 1.4x TC MkIII may be much better than the MkII so might, oddly enough, you end up with the 70-300L doing better than the 70-200L over 70-200 and the 70-200L+TC doing noticeably better at 280mm!! That would be most bizarre! And suddenly is the 70-300L worth it anymore? If you can get a better 280mm from teh 70-200 and that lens still gives a 70-200 of a quality level nobody complained about before plus you use the TC with your super-tele or perhaps somethng else you might have. hmmmmmmm.......
Anyway this is just one test.
Also he didn't look at the edges at all.
EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!: I jsut realized he shot a bill, which means you may have shot somewhat close in where the 70-200 f/4 IS stinks! Maybe this is why it beats it at the short to mid end and loses at the longest end
Maybe at normal landscape/wildlife distance the results would have nothing to do with these at all? the 70-200 f/4 IS does way better over 15' and you really want to at least make to not be anywhere near MFD.
Edited on Nov 18, 2010 at 02:01 AM · View previous versions
Nov 18, 2010 at 01:41 AM
p.8 #1470-300 IS L came
This one is actual 300mm, f5.6 1/30 sec. IS = 2. LR dispays correct info ( My PS element 2.0 's info is very confusing and not accurate)
http://mxjkqg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p68fXZGfE1Cv1G6_3qKMh1KTp3Jl1G4mKfvjs71eggje80L54Y28Z2oYaURflI_ZWRvqDUKs3oFnWw9XBl6lDJ8KTvhdtoOea/l8.jpg
http://mxjkqg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p68fXZGfE1Cv1G6_3qKMh1KTp3Jl1G4mKfvjs71eggje80L54Y28Z2oYaURflI_ZWRvqDUKs3oFnWw9XBl6lDJ8KTvhdtoOea/l8.jpg
Nov 18, 2010 at 01:50 AM
p.8 #1570-300 IS L came
myy001 wrote:
This one is actual 300mm, f5.6 1/30 sec. IS = 2. LR dispays correct info ( My PS element 2.0 's info is very confusing and not accurate)
http://mxjkqg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p68fXZGfE1Cv1G6_3qKMh1KTp3Jl1G4mKfvjs71eggje80L54Y28Z2oYaURflI_ZWRvqDUKs3oFnWw9XBl6lDJ8KTvhdtoOea/l8.jpg
it looks better than the guys copy i linked to above at 300mm then
This one is actual 300mm, f5.6 1/30 sec. IS = 2. LR dispays correct info ( My PS element 2.0 's info is very confusing and not accurate)
http://mxjkqg.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p68fXZGfE1Cv1G6_3qKMh1KTp3Jl1G4mKfvjs71eggje80L54Y28Z2oYaURflI_ZWRvqDUKs3oFnWw9XBl6lDJ8KTvhdtoOea/l8.jpg
it looks better than the guys copy i linked to above at 300mm then
Nov 18, 2010 at 02:03 AM
p.8 #1670-300 IS L came
ChrisDM wrote:
In most cases 3rd parties can't compete but in this case the Tamron is the winner in my book.
A winner or THE winner? Did you compare it head to head against the L?
In most cases 3rd parties can't compete but in this case the Tamron is the winner in my book.
A winner or THE winner? Did you compare it head to head against the L?
Nov 18, 2010 at 06:59 AM
p.8 #1770-300 IS L came
skibum5 wrote:
the 70-200 inlcudes the tripod collar while it is a $250+shipping+maybe tax extra for the 70-300L (plus the bare 70-300L is $1600 not $1500)
Why in the world would you need a tripod collar for such a light lens? Besides, the 70-300 just came out--surely the price will drop.
the 70-200 inlcudes the tripod collar while it is a $250+shipping+maybe tax extra for the 70-300L (plus the bare 70-300L is $1600 not $1500)
Why in the world would you need a tripod collar for such a light lens? Besides, the 70-300 just came out--surely the price will drop.
Nov 18, 2010 at 07:01 AM
p.8 #1870-300 IS L came
M Vers wrote:
A winner or THE winner? Did you compare it head to head against the L?
The winner. While the 70-300L may beat it in relatively irrelavent corner pixel peeping contests, the Tamron 70-300 is at least "L zoom good" (I own a lot of L zooms and I would call the Tamron "L zoom good" in terms of IQ). Couple that with the fact that it is much lighter (remember this is a landscape/travel lens for many if not most of us), and MUCH more affordable, it is the winner. So big picture, all factors considered (i.e. weight and cost), the Tamron is the winner, in my book.
ChrisDM wrote
In most cases 3rd parties can't compete but in this case the Tamron is the winner in my book.The winner. While the 70-300L may beat it in relatively irrelavent corner pixel peeping contests, the Tamron 70-300 is at least "L zoom good" (I own a lot of L zooms and I would call the Tamron "L zoom good" in terms of IQ). Couple that with the fact that it is much lighter (remember this is a landscape/travel lens for many if not most of us), and MUCH more affordable, it is the winner. So big picture, all factors considered (i.e. weight and cost), the Tamron is the winner, in my book.
Nov 18, 2010 at 07:16 AM
jcharity
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.8 #1970-300 IS L came
ChrisDM wrote:
A winner or THE winner? Did you compare it head to head against the L?The winner. While the 70-300L may beat it in relatively irrelavent corner pixel peeping contests, the Tamron 70-300 is at least "L zoom good" (I own a lot of L zooms and I would call the Tamron "L zoom good" in terms of IQ). Couple that with the fact that it is much lighter (remember this is a landscape/travel lens for many if not most of us), and MUCH more affordable, it is the winner. So big picture, all factors considered (i.e. weight and cost), the Tamron is the winner, in my book.
I agree.
M Vers wrote
ChrisDM wrote
In most cases 3rd parties can't compete but in this case the Tamron is the winner in my book.I agree.
Nov 18, 2010 at 07:20 AM
p.8 #2070-300 IS L came
M Vers wrote:
Why in the world would you need a tripod collar for such a light lens?
A general rule of thumb, to place the least stress on your mount, is to mount the lens to the tripod directly if it weighs more than the camera. The 70-300L weighs more than the prosumer/consumer bodies so in those cases it would be wise to use a collar. But the 70-300L weighs a little less than a 1 series body (just by a few ounces), so in that case I wouldn't use one. However as the lens displaces more of the weight away from the tripod head, a good head and a solid connection would be required to overcome "ball creep" (cheap ballheads that settle/sink even after you set them).
Why in the world would you need a tripod collar for such a light lens?
A general rule of thumb, to place the least stress on your mount, is to mount the lens to the tripod directly if it weighs more than the camera. The 70-300L weighs more than the prosumer/consumer bodies so in those cases it would be wise to use a collar. But the 70-300L weighs a little less than a 1 series body (just by a few ounces), so in that case I wouldn't use one. However as the lens displaces more of the weight away from the tripod head, a good head and a solid connection would be required to overcome "ball creep" (cheap ballheads that settle/sink even after you set them).
Nov 18, 2010 at 07:22 AM