wjmeyer wrote: Smiert Spionam wrote:
I\'m having a hard time seeing the utility. It\'s the same size as the ~$400 Tamron or Nikon 70-300 stabilized lenses (actually longer), and gains a half stop over them at 200mm. For that you\'d expect to pay $900-1200?
I don\'t get it.
Look at her, she\'s tall, sexy, sleek and dressed in black Seriously, if it is anything close to the Canon version in IQ then it is worth it. It needs to be exremely fast to AF, the VR really needs to work well (I have not had good experiences with Sigma in this area) and the bokeh needs to be nice and creamy, if it\'s got all that going for it and it sells less than $1000, then I think it will be a winner, at least for me.
....
I still don\'t see how you spend $1k plus to gain a half stop over a lens that already exists. The Nikon 70-300VR is at least decently fast to AF, has very good stabilization, and great image quality wide open at 200mm. The Tamron is even better on all three counts. I\'ve owned both, and both are great -- but the Tamron has the best stabilization I\'ve ever used short of a supertele, and it\'s sharper and faster to AF, to boot.
I\'m a big fan of fast glass, and am willing to pay for that extra half stop of speed -- I think an 85/1.4 is easily worth it over any 85/1.8, etc. But to get f/4 over f/5, paying $1000 for a lens that is just a little less slow? For me to be interested, it would have to offer something else significant -- probably a considerably reduced size, which obviously isn\'t in the cards. I still don\'t get it.
At a street price of $600 or so, I could see it, but even then only if it\'s really good at f/4 throughout its range, and has no major faults.
wjmeyer wrote: Smiert Spionam wrote:
I\'m having a hard time seeing the utility. It\'s the same size as the ~$400 Tamron or Nikon 70-300 stabilized lenses (actually longer), and gains a half stop over them at 200mm. For that you\'d expect to pay $900-1200?
I don\'t get it.
Look at her, she\'s tall, sexy, sleek and dressed in black Seriously, if it is anything close to the Canon version in IQ then it is worth it. It needs to be exremely fast to AF, the VR really needs to work well (I have not had good experiences with Sigma in this area) and the bokeh needs to be nice and creamy, if it\'s got all that going for it and it sells less than $1000, then I think it will be a winner, at least for me.
....
I still don\'t see how you spend $1k plus to gain a half stop over a lens that already exists. The Nikon 70-300VR is at least decently fast to AF, has very good stabilization, and great image quality wide open at 200mm. The Tamron is even better on all three counts. I\'ve owned both, and both are great -- but the Tamron has the best stabilization I\'ve ever used short of a supertele, and it\'s sharper and faster to AF, to boot.
I\'m a big fan of fast glass, and am willing to pay for that extra half stop of speed -- I think an 85/1.4 is easily worth it over any 85/1.8, etc. But to get f/4 over f/5, paying $1000 for a lens that is just a little less slow? For me to be interested, it would have to offer something else significant -- probably a considerably reduced size, which obviously isn\'t in the cards. I still don\'t get it.
Feb 03, 2012 at 04:05 PM
Previous versions of Smiert Spionam's message #10307079 « New Tokina zoom: 70-200 F4 IF »
Seriously, if it is anything close to the Canon version in IQ then it is worth it. It needs to be exremely fast to AF, the VR really needs to work well (I have not had good experiences with Sigma in this area) and the bokeh needs to be nice and creamy, if it\'s got all that going for it and it sells less than $1000, then I think it will be a winner, at least for me.