Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
UberGerbil wrote:Wow. That's, uh, Not Good. My mostly-subjective (and possibly dated) ranking of the major 3rd party lens mfrs has always put Tamron in the middle, below Sigma but above Tokina.
Looking for Knowledge wrote:When drunk.....
I want to have sex, but find I am more likely to be shot down than when I am sober.
Heiwashin wrote:No news on the warranty events yet?
ludi wrote:That's a real bad habit in $400+ lenses.
sjl wrote:ludi wrote:That's a real bad habit in $400+ lenses.
Not saying it's acceptable or anything like that, but dude - $400 for a camera lens? That's a low price. Most of my lenses are worth well over $1200; one was over $2000 new.
It's like saying "that's a bad habit in a $5000 car" - sure, it sounds like a lot, but you look at the market, and it's dirt cheap.
Still, here's hoping it gets sorted out sooner rather than later - cheap lens or not, it's not acceptable behaviour.
etilena wrote:sjl wrote:ludi wrote:That's a real bad habit in $400+ lenses.
Not saying it's acceptable or anything like that, but dude - $400 for a camera lens? That's a low price. Most of my lenses are worth well over $1200; one was over $2000 new.
It's like saying "that's a bad habit in a $5000 car" - sure, it sounds like a lot, but you look at the market, and it's dirt cheap.
Still, here's hoping it gets sorted out sooner rather than later - cheap lens or not, it's not acceptable behaviour.
Wow, did you just post to brag how expensive your lenses are?
Voldenuit wrote:He's just saying that $400 is not a lot of money for a lens, and that one should not be expecting Canon L or Leica M levels of build quality in these things.
ludi wrote:Unless you're already saving for the EOS 5D Mark II, in which case the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM would be the logical replacement.I guess it may be time to start saving for the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Seriously, Tamron's lens warranty is much longer than Canon's. You should be able to get your existing Di-II 17-50mm f/2.8 lens repaired at no charge. Noisy focus motor or not, you won't find a better zoom lens for $460 minus rebate.
ludi wrote:JustAnEngineer wrote:Seriously, Tamron's lens warranty is much longer than Canon's. You should be able to get your existing Di-II 17-50mm f/2.8 lens repaired at no charge. Noisy focus motor or not, you won't find a better zoom lens for $460 minus rebate.
Ayep, as noted above, they have confirmed warranty coverage. Just waiting to hear back on turn-around, now.
Meanwhile, I'm eyeing an EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM on eBay. They usually go for around $275 in good condition, and now that I have two camera bodies, I wouldn't mind having a second general-purpose zoom as a backup. And IIRC the one time I played with one, the 17-85mm doesn't telescope the way the EF 28-105 and EF 28-135 IS sometimes do.
Looking for Knowledge wrote:When drunk.....
I want to have sex, but find I am more likely to be shot down than when I am sober.
ludi wrote:The EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a much better performer than the 17-85.I'm eyeing an EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM on eBay.
FireGryphon wrote:Sucks that the lens broke, but that's par for the course, in my experience. There are certainly good samples produced of third party lenses but there are many more horror stories than of genuine Canon/Nikon/etc. lenses. For the price, though, you can argue that they're worth the effort of getting a working one, but it is a shame to pair one with a camera like the 7D. I break that rule by pairing my 7D with some inexpensive lenses, but it's like night and day when I use an L. But I digress.
JustAnEngineer wrote:ludi wrote:The EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a much better performer than the 17-85.I'm eyeing an EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM on eBay.
the 15-85mm costs way too much for being both EF-S and variable aperture.
ludi wrote:Voldenuit wrote:He's just saying that $400 is not a lot of money for a lens, and that one should not be expecting Canon L or Leica M levels of build quality in these things.
Unfortunately, I also detected a bit of bragging.
$400+ is still a lot of money for a lens
His comparison was to a used car, which is bupkus -- when you buy used, you get used, and must accept wear-and-tear risk.
Zoom rings that go from smooth to rough and then break in the span of a couple hours, after just 8 months of casual use, no, not expected. That's a bad habit in $400+ lenses.
ludi wrote:The Tamron's problem is not image quality. I got vivid proof of this at the aforementioned auto show. I was shooting the 7D at 1600 ISO, Aperture Priority, and mainly using the Tamron, a friend borrowed my 40D and shot at 1600 ISO, Aperture Priority, using mainly the EF 28mm f/1.8. My shots were uniformly better in terms of noise performance, which is one of the main reasons why I bought the 7D, and the sharpness was excellent.
ludi wrote:How does that saying go? "The poor man buys twice." Fortunately, camera lenses can usually be re-sold to recover most of what you spent for them.I'm eyeing an EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM on eBay.... If I had EF-S 15-85mm money, I'd just keep saving. IMO the 15-85mm costs way too much.
Not expected, and definitely not acceptable, but certainly not particularly surprising
sjl wrote:Which wasn't my intention. All I intended to say was that $400 is very much at the low end of the price bracket for a camera lens. When you're talking about an f/2.8 zoom, it's extremely cheap. My first reaction upon seeing an f/2.8 zoom for that sort of price would be, "So what's wrong with it?"
ludi wrote:Tamron's new PZD Piezoelectric drive first appeared in an 18-270mm ultra-zoom, but it hasn't made it to the rest of their lens lineup yet.Tamron doesn't presently offer an ultrasonic motor system...
JustAnEngineer wrote:Tamron's new PZD Piezoelectric drive first appeared in an 18-270mm ultra-zoom, but it hasn't made it to the rest of their lens lineup yet.
Anomymous Gerbil wrote:You realise that noise is caused by the sensor, not the lens, right? Also, Aperture Priority won't make any difference to noise levels, so I'm not sure why you refer specifically to that?
SPOOFE wrote:the 15-85mm costs way too much for being both EF-S and variable aperture.
I haven't handled one, but according to the sharpness comparisons on Lenstip, the 15-85 is ludicrously sharp wide open, sharper than the 17-55 at equivalent apertures. In other words, you'll probably be shooting the 17-55 at the same apertures as the 15-85 anyway (in bright shooting conditions), and still be getting less-sharp results. Of course, that's just a sharpness test; there may be a dozen superior qualities to the 17-55 that I wouldn't know about, having never handled either.
On the other hand, if you know you're gonna be shooting at 2.8... well, then you need 2.8 and that's all there is to it. That's why I got Tokina's 11-16 instead of the 12-24, f'rinstance.