02-12-2011, 12:05 AM
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1297460957' post='6066']
The sample images don't look that hot; they look a lot like the images I took with 1.4x + 70-200.[/quote]
Which 70-200? It would be great if this lens performed like the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x Extender, but of course it doesn't.
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1297460957' post='6066']Given that this lens is the 'same' optical quality as the canon and the same price why pick one over the other?[/quote]
- Ultrasonic motor with full-time manual focus
- Non-rotating front element
- Better build quality
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1297460957' post='6066'](btw not really related but i've been fairly happy with the 15-85 which seems to resolve alot more details)[/quote]
...and the 60mm macro is even sharper and cheaper. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
The 15-85 is great and I also highly recommend it, but things aren't as simple for "affordable" tele lenses.
You can go for a 70-200 but it'll cost a thousand bucks if you want IS (which most people want). The cheaper lenses (70-300 IS, even the 55-250) aren't particularly bad optically (not great either, though), but they have other shortcomings, mainly in the construction: Rotating filters, no ring-USM, wobbly inner lens tube on some samples of the 70-300 IS, etc.
That's what makes the Tamron so interesting. Same optical quality as the 70-300 IS but with better construction for the same price sounds like a good deal to me.
The sample images don't look that hot; they look a lot like the images I took with 1.4x + 70-200.[/quote]
Which 70-200? It would be great if this lens performed like the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x Extender, but of course it doesn't.
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1297460957' post='6066']Given that this lens is the 'same' optical quality as the canon and the same price why pick one over the other?[/quote]
- Ultrasonic motor with full-time manual focus
- Non-rotating front element
- Better build quality
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1297460957' post='6066'](btw not really related but i've been fairly happy with the 15-85 which seems to resolve alot more details)[/quote]
...and the 60mm macro is even sharper and cheaper. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />The 15-85 is great and I also highly recommend it, but things aren't as simple for "affordable" tele lenses.
You can go for a 70-200 but it'll cost a thousand bucks if you want IS (which most people want). The cheaper lenses (70-300 IS, even the 55-250) aren't particularly bad optically (not great either, though), but they have other shortcomings, mainly in the construction: Rotating filters, no ring-USM, wobbly inner lens tube on some samples of the 70-300 IS, etc.
That's what makes the Tamron so interesting. Same optical quality as the 70-300 IS but with better construction for the same price sounds like a good deal to me.