Seems like it might be worth your while to buy/sell that lens as long as the price differential remains that large... even if you don't choose to use it/keep it.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Well, your dilemma reminds me of mine at the opposite site of focal lengths.
I sold my 16-35 2.8L (version I) and I wonder whether to get the 16-35 2.8L II.
Around this focal length I have just the 14mm 2.8L II, TS-E17 4L, TS-E24mm 3.5L II, 35mm 1.4L, 24-70 2.8LII ( ... oh and the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 (this is not a joke I had forgotten it!)
I guess I should not get the 16-35 2.8 II and instead get the fisheye 8-15 zoom but still...
P.S To tell the truth I obviously do not carry all of them at the same time...
P.S2 I wish for a coma free 16-35 2.8L III ...
Haven't seen many birds in CT yet; we have a mess of Blue Jays where I am during the summer.
The Tamron will do your photography justice. Plus matched with you 6D - with its -3EV sensitivity rating on the centre cross point will be an amazing combo. I agree with trying both. If you can go one further and find a place that you can rent either one, I think would certainly help your decision. In regards to the focus speed, the reality is - at times its like splitting hairs, its close but negligible. BUT to some photographers they would said its worlds apart and reviews will go either way.
Check this review out on the Tamron. It does mention that Tamron has the edge over the Sigma 70-200.
I need help! Spring is in the air and I am coming down with GAS, I am spending to much time looking at lens reviews....how can I rid myself of this affliction?..?
Good point. One issue: no I'm not earning money out of it, and it means I will not get a single cent out of it too. Seems like most of you guys are pro-aperture in here then. I understand most people stated that Canon's speed is good, but does the Tamron lag behind much? How big is the difference? Seems like you guys are saying the speed is worth twice the price? It will be used mainly indoors I believe, hence it seems like I'm more of going for the Tamron for now. Definitely will use it outdoors at times, but the fact that I'm a hobbyist means that there's a good chunk of it being indoors.
Guys, there's one point that maybe I didn't explain all too well. My observation is not about the feasibility of a 500/5.6 or a 600/6.3 for 2500€. It's about the feasibility of such a lens at the same price of the current Tamron 150-600.
The overall hypothesis is that if a 600/6.3 is viable, then a 500/5.6 should be too. It's not a wishlist thread, I would like to discuss the technical implications of that. Comments on that?
Designing and building a 500mm prime is arguably easier than a 4x-600mm zoom, so that should offer the basis for better optics. Comments on that?
Seems like everyone's pro Tamron's 70-200mm F2.8 VC. Is this a testament to the IQ of Tamron? How would the zoom fare in comparison? Is the motor comparable to Canon's USM? F2.8 is really a big lure, bokehlicious and everything. How sharp is it in comparison to Canon's 70-300mm? Both lenses are priced rather closely as mentioned, so it really boils down to how versatile and useful it is in normal daily life (travelling, events, gatherings and stuff like that: read mundane. No wildlife, but sports might be used a bit.) On a side note, is 6D and a 70-xxxmm a good combo for sports?