Messages

331

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamaron 24-70 f2.8 Review

« on: May 11, 2012, 05:38:29 PM »

So overall, the IQ is much better than the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC? How is the AF compared to the 17-50mm?
Thanks

Hey,
Check this forum thread.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772
Over than 1000 post here.  Thus, I believe the reviews do not bias Canon or Tamron.  Overall the lens has better IQ than Canon 24-70 L.  The VC is amazing.  And the price is much cheaper than Canon 24-70mm.  It's almost perfect except the same AF problem with Canon 24-70mm.  About 10 to 20% of them may need to do MA.

Forgot to answer your another question.  Based on the posts on the thread, the AF of Tamron 24-70 is very fast.  It's noticeable slower than Canon 24-70mm, but you won't feel slow.

332

EOS Bodies / Re: After DPREVIEW of D800 would you still get the Canon 5d mark iii?

« on: May 10, 2012, 06:59:25 PM »

I'm still in the undecided category, but I'm swaying dangerously close to switching to Nikon.   Of course, at the rate I'm making up my mind, I'll be deciding between the 5d Mark IV and the d900.

Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos | NY Wedding Photos

Me too.  I will wait for the next generation.  If 5D3 had 36MP or D800 had 6FPS/high ISO, I would buy them for 3K+.

333

EOS Bodies / Re: After DPREVIEW of D800 would you still get the Canon 5d mark iii?

« on: May 09, 2012, 11:06:08 AM »

No, I will not.
But then I didn't think the 5DMkIII was worth the price before the review either.

I guess I won't either because  I have too many Canon lenses.  I might just wait for 5D3 price drop or keep using my 5D2 till 5D4 release.
However, I told many my friend switch to D800 if they don't have many EF mount lenses.

334

Lenses / Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?

« on: May 07, 2012, 12:39:52 AM »

I'm pretty sure he got a bad Tamron sample

this is the whole problem with tamron in general its a complete lottery as to how it will perform

Tamron gives you 6 years warranty and you can return it in 30 days if you purchase it from Amazon.  What I don't understand is why people don't return the lens if they get a bad copy.  By the way, Do you really think Canon 24-70mm Mark I is better than Tamron?  I believe many people get a bad copy of Canon 24-70mm L.

335

Lenses / Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?

« on: May 04, 2012, 02:26:13 PM »

Avoid 3rd party lenses except for Zeiss lenses 

This lens might change your mind.  In many forums people love this lens and are selling their Canon 24-70mm MK1.  I actually are waiting for three things.
1. The price drop.  The price of third party lenses usually drops in 6 months after they are released.
2. Self improvement.  All first shipment of new products are not perfect.  In few month they will have new internal reversion.
3. More reviews.  This will be the key to make me switch to this lens from my MK1.

336

Lenses / Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?

« on: May 02, 2012, 04:11:52 PM »

Any news on the "onion bokeh"? The LenRentals review didn't change, and I just saw that the Sigma 50/1.4 suffers from it (, too?): http://mansurovs.com/nikon-50mm-f1-8g-review ... Does anyone have the Sigma and feel that it's bokeh is bad due to this effect?

Check this thread.  Many people posted Tamron 24-70mm samples here.  Looks the lens do have onion bokeh effect.  The poster say that's okay.  However, I will just wait for more information.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772

337

Lenses / Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?

« on: May 02, 2012, 02:03:44 PM »

IMO the 24-105's low resale is strongly linked to the fact that it has been the kit lens of the 5D MK I, MK II and now MK III. Some people no doubt get it as a kit lens because it's a good value and then find that they want the 24-70 or something else...

Agree.  That's why the resale value of 24-105mm is below 80% of it value.  However, the resale value of Canon 24-70mm on CL is also about 80% of it value.  It's only slightly better than 24-105mm.  You can check it on CL.  By the way, the WANTED price from buyer for 24-70mm is only about 900USD anywhere on CL.

338

Lenses / Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?

« on: May 02, 2012, 12:26:00 PM »

your 17-55 example of selling at a rate below other 3rd parties is slightly flawed.  While everyone is stating canon lens hold their values, it needs a qualifier and that's canon EF mount lens.  I've seen ef-s lens lose quiet a bit more value than EF lens.

May people here said "Canon lenses have better resale value".  None of them said "Canon EF Mount lenses have better resale value".  By the way, you know the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 is EF-S mount, right?

Edit:
Let me make it clear.
1. Canon really makes a lot of good lenses.  That's why I have many Canon lenses.
2. A third party lens can hold it value well if the lens is really good.  I don't know how good the Tamron 24-70mm is yet because I haven't see some helpful reviews.
3. Canon lenses DO NOT always have good resale value.  Please search Canon EF 24-105mm L on CL.  The resale value is low as well.

Too many people just post here without proof.  Some of the posts really bias on Canon.  They just against anything not good for Canon.  That makes me feel they are posted by CANON EMPLOYEES.

339

Lenses / Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?

« on: May 02, 2012, 02:21:17 AM »

Just as in this case, I think the Tamron 24-70 will have 'great IQ' (and it has the bonus of VC) - but - it won't have the absolute 'stunning IQ' of the new Canon 24-70mm USM, plus I expect the Canon will probably have superior bokeh..  I can understand why a lot of people will be getting the Tamron 24-70mm (particularly for the price) - yet most professionals will probably buy the Canon 24-70mm mk II.  There is a place for both. 

Happy shooting everyone!! Competition IS good.

Paul

I believe most people buy Tamron 24-70mm VC for two reasons.
1. It has better IQ than Canon 24-70mm Mark I(not Mark II)
2. VC feature.

If Canon 24-70mm Mark II is 1299, I believe people wouldn't be interested in Tamron 24-70mm VC.  Remember this lens is even cheaper than Canon 24-70mm Mark I.

340

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron EF 24-70 f/2.8 VC in Stock & Quick MTF Review

« on: May 01, 2012, 04:06:33 PM »

More samples here
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1108651
Looks like it's sharp, very effective VC, good AF, decent bokeh, hefty vignetting.

Thanks for the site. Looks good but yeah, that vignetting is massive. This looks like a great lens on a cropped body and a good lens for the FF users. Of course, since Canon won't make a similar lens with IS, it looks like the choice is between vignetting and IS. I think I would prefer IS since lighroom traditionally does a decent job getting rid of vignetting

Learned something here.  I haven't thought about rid of vignetting by software.

341

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron EF 24-70 f/2.8 VC in Stock & Quick MTF Review

« on: April 30, 2012, 08:34:51 PM »

Also, the resolution figures seem to indicate the lens performs better at the wide end. CA is well controlled as well... Though there is this onion-like oof blur in the sample shot at f/2.8 - not sure what to make of that...

The comment from the original website.

"The concentric rings are caused by a water droplet on the front element as it was beginning to rain"

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f-2-8-vc-usd-lens-review-19056

342

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: What do you recommend? 7D 60D T3i T4i

« on: April 30, 2012, 06:18:05 PM »

I haven't use 60D, so I cannot give you any idea for it.  I have upgraded to 7D from T2i.  The IQ between T2i and 7D are almost same.  However, the control of 7D is much much better than T2i.  I believe the control of 7D will be much better than T3i and T4i as well.  Many people say 60D is also good.  However, I love the continue shots and AF on 7D.  I would say think about what you need and buy what you need.

343

Lenses / Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?

« on: April 30, 2012, 05:17:51 PM »

your canon lenses will always work on future canon bodies
your canon lenses will retain value more
your canon lenses are just better

I don't know if the first reason is true or not.  I just wonder how many old third party lens cannot be used on Canon's new bodies.  However, I really question your second and third reasons.  I mentioned that Canon's lenses do not always have better resale value in my earlier post.  Most resale values of Canon lenses are below 80% of it original value.  I am still trying to sell my Canon 17-55mm which I bought @ 1100 plus tax.  If you like, I would like to sell you 900 without tax.
Here is the link to show you this lens is better than Canon 24-70mm Mark I.  Please don't tell me Mark II is better because they are not in the same price range and lack of IS feature.

Edit: forgot the link.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data

By the way, people are posting some pictures taken by the lens in the past two days in this thread.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772
They look great.

344

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron EF 24-70 f/2.8 VC in Stock & Quick MTF Review

« on: April 30, 2012, 05:05:39 PM »

Man, this is starting to look better and better! I was going to wait a couple years(hopefully won't take that long) to get the new EF 24-70 mk II, but for way less money, this might just sway me. I am a budding wedding photographer, and am thinking about getting a 24-70 for the sake of versatility. My current setup is all primes and any zoom I get will have to be close in terms of IQ.

Waiting to see how this will compare to the ef 24-70 II...

I don't expect it would be better than 24-70 mark ii.  However, same price with mark I and better IQ + VC are really interesting for me.  I am also waiting for more reviews.

345

Lenses / Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?

« on: April 27, 2012, 06:40:25 PM »

Is really Canon lenses get better resale value?  I got my Tamron 18-270 about 2 year ago for 500 and just sold it on CL for 400 about month ago.  Now I am selling my Canon 17-55mm which I got for 1100 and asking 900 on CL.  Few people is asking for 800.  Now I am still holding it because 800 is too low for me.  The resale value of the Tamron lens is about 80%, and the resale value of Canon 17-55mm would be expected lower than that.  How you guys can say Canon lenses have better resale value.  Go to CL and check Canon 24-105mm and 24-70mm.  You will see people want to buy them for 65% to 75% of their value.  Wake up guys.

By the way, I just sold my Sigma 30mm F/1.4 for 400.  I bought it for 450, so the resale value for this THIRD PARTY lens is about 90% of it original value.  It's much higher than Canon lens's resale value.