Greg M wrote: dsr1 wrote: GC5 wrote: Greg M wrote: GC5 wrote:
Right - just like the Sigma 35 has pushed down the price of the 35L... wait, that didn\'t happen. Until it proves it can deliver reliably in the AF department, something with which Tamron has had problems, this will be at most a step up from the Sigma 150-500, not a replacement for the L (which Canon will hopefully release at a halfway decent price sometime).
Not even close to the same comparison. The latest Tamron lenses have very good AF (sigma is still unreliable) and this Tamron has 50% more reach then the 100-400. If it\'s as good as it seems to be then it\'ll be a step UP over the 100-400 for people that want more reach or don\'t like a push/pull lens. Also much newer stabilization.
If the Tamron is as good as we\'ve seen so far then who\'s going to want to buy a used 100-400 for $900 when for $169 more they can get a new lens that gives them 50% more reach, newer VC and a 6 year warranty?
Now I am making an assumption that this is going to turn out to be a very good lens. So far it looks like it could be.
I don\'t have a problem with Tamron, but their AF consistency is not as reliable as Canon, and several of their lenses have had problems with outer AF points especially. If AF consistency, sharpness, colors and the like matter to you, the verdict is still out. I\'m sure it will be a fine lens, but then, so is the Sigma. Only time will tell, but there are plenty of people who will stick with the Canon. Clearly is is longer and likely has better stabilization, and if that is your only criteria, the new lens looks a winner.
Greg M,
It may be the only one in the world but I have a Tamron 70-300 mm f4-5.6 that is sharp enough that I can crop from 300 mm to the 100-400\'s 400 mm scene and find no loss of IQ what so ever. It also has the best VC, I\'ve owned including Canons 70-200 f4 and Canons 100-400 mm. Not one problem with reliability on the Tamron. I was already thinking of selling my 100-400 before the Tamron 150-600 mm was introduced. After seeing all the samples posted in reviews, I just sold my 100-400 for enough to pay for the Tamron and have enough left to pay for a bean bag to help stabilize the lens at the 600 mm it offers.
I honestly think Tamrons policy of using the new technology to improve quality and gain customers and customer confidence is a lot more desirable than Canon or Nikon\'s policy to line their pockets at customer expense, Here Here Tamron!
DonR
Me? I\'m not knocking Tamron! I bought the 70-200 VC and sold my Canon 70-200 II. I\'m hopefully optimistic that this 150-600 turns out to be a great lens for the money. I want one, not that I\'ll use it much
Greg M.
How\'s the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC? Is it as good as has been reported compared to the Canon 70-200 MK II IS? I thing you\'re the first I\'ve heard of that changed from thr Canon MK II to the Tamron 2.8 VC.
I could wind uo owning all Tamron lens before it\'s over.
