« on: December 24, 2012, 09:01:26 AM »
70-200 first but if you like primes, you could squeeze a 135L and a sigma 35mm for the same $$$. After all, the 100-400 is doing most tele work right?
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.
I really can't understand the nitpicking with the bokeh... I haven't met any photog who would choose bokeh over sharpness. Well, I guess if you've paid $1000+ for a 35L then the sigma has to be THAT bad...
Not me. I'm sold - I'm getting the sigma.
Tamrons are junk. They're good starter lenses but that's about it.
Have you looked at the new Tamron 24-70? From the limited time I rented it and the images I'm seeing, it's quite good. Also from the reviews I've read, it's very good. IQ, not quite up to the 24-70 v2, sure, but still around as good or a bit more than the 24-70 v1. Build quality seems quite good, although again, not quite up to L standards. But it's $1300, not $2100-2300 or whatever the 24-70 v2 is going for right now.
Now, most of the rest of the Tamron glass, far as I know you're mostly correct, but if their 24-70 is the new direction they are going it, they're likely to become a serious off-brand competitor for people who can't quite afford L and don't want to pay the vastly more expensive new non-L primes with IS.
It comes to personal choice but wow lots of people on this forum use filters as protection.
Lets put this into perspective.
For the ones that have it permanently on do you guys buy the paint protection for your brand new car as well?
How about eye protection when you go out of your house. After all your eyes are more important than any L lens.
This reminds me of some old timers that would bubble wrap their TV remote control so it wouldn't get damaged.
The most infuriating thing for me is filters on the 18-55mm efs kit lens. Who here would seriously recommend for someone to use a filter on this lens?
Some other interesting reads.