Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
TheEmrys wrote:Have you looked at the new Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC USD? It has image stabilization and the USD is pretty nice (I've got it on my 70-300). It is not yet available for the Sony, but it is out for Canon and Nikon. Its worth a look if nothing else. Plus, Tamron's 6 year warranty always entices me. Its twice what anyone else's is.
Airmantharp wrote:TheEmrys wrote:Have you looked at the new Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC USD? It has image stabilization and the USD is pretty nice (I've got it on my 70-300). It is not yet available for the Sony, but it is out for Canon and Nikon. Its worth a look if nothing else. Plus, Tamron's 6 year warranty always entices me. Its twice what anyone else's is.
I don't reach for a tele nearly often enough, but either a Sigma/Tamron 70-200/2.8 'IS' or Canon's 70-200/4L IS has me interested. Unfortunately, that means that I don't have a recommendation for the OP, other than to go try them out. I think that the lower weight and guaranteed sharpness of the Canon might put it ahead, but with the higher low-light noise of Canon's crop sensors, the wider aperture might be more useful on a telezoom; the Canon lens is a few hundred cheaper too, I believe.
I call this one The Napoleon – it’s a bit short (of 200mm) but still kicks butt. The Tamron is very sharp throughout the zoom range, autofocuses much, much quicker than the older Tamron superzooms did, and the Vibration Control is excellent.
Is it as good as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II? No, not quite. The Canon is one of the best zoom lenses ever made. But it’s close to that and less expensive. I don’t find it quite the great value for Canon shooters that I do for Nikon shooters, though. The price difference isn’t as great and the IS II is a bit better lens than the VR II. Still, the Tamron can save you some money and you won’t be disappointed in it, it’s excellent.
TheEmrys wrote:In an aside, I have a hard time wrapping my head around an f/4 70-2x0 with the prevalence of Minolta beercan lenses out there for $100. But, brands have differences so there ya go.
TheEmrys wrote:Have you looked at the new Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC USD? It has image stabilization and the USD is pretty nice (I've got it on my 70-300). It is not yet available for the Sony, but it is out for Canon and Nikon. Its worth a look if nothing else. Plus, Tamron's 6 year warranty always entices me. Its twice what anyone else's is.
ludi wrote:I wouldn't have to go buy a second, expensive set of 67mm filters.
JustAnEngineer wrote:ludi wrote:I wouldn't have to go buy a second, expensive set of 67mm filters.
http://www.adorama.com/FLU6777.html
PenGun wrote:I am actually thinking of diving right into photography again. My little Fuji has been a real turn on.
I will need a naked Nikon D 800. They rip out all the filters:
http://www.spencerscamera.com/store/sto ... gory_ID=15
That will break me, then I guess the 85mm 1.8 will do for a start, oh and a few filters.
ludi wrote:I mainly use zooms because I shoot a very wide range of subjects (many of them moving) and at a wide range of distances. For closeup work I have an EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro and for portraiture I have an EF 85mm f/1.8. For most other shooting I don't need the wide aperture that primes can offer.
Airmantharp wrote:The 85/1.8 is something special for portraits- but man, you'll be scrounging out the longitudinal chromatic aberration all day. Thankfully Lightroom is pretty good at it, and I don't think that there's any lens I'd rather have that's good for both portraits and fast telephoto shots outside of the very similar 100/2 and the expensive 135/2L. Certainly don't trust Sigma's AF to compete what Canon has done on those lenses.