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).
M Vers wrote:
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.
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
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)
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.
dwweiche wrote:
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)
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.
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.
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:
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.
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).
If not for this one thing this lens would really seem to be a stunning thing indeed. 
Maybe at normal landscape/wildlife distance the results would have nothing to do with these at all