You should take a look at the Tamron 300mm USD VC. It is in your price range.
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 am a little confused. The Digital Picture review claims that this new S version shows a significant improvement in sharpness, and has the comparative test results to back this up. Yet the MTF charts and optical design for this lens and the previous version are identical. Also, Roger over at LensRentals (who I have a great deal of faith in) says: "the optics are identical" and consequently he wouldn't pay the extra grand for the new version.
What do you think is going on here?
Which one to choose? The cheaper Tamron or the Canon with the better optics?
I've been using DPP for years. Decided to try out LR. Didn't like it. Even opening the RAW file showed me huge differences immediately (shot in "faithful" with sharpening at 0 from the camera). Add to that the complexity of using LR and I quickly went back to DPP.
The relationship between colour and temperature of bodies receiving radiation is not as straightforward as 99% of postings on the net say. Although black absorbs heat better than white, it correspondingly radiates heat better. The inescapable consequence is that black and white bodies reach the same temperature when they are in sunlight but black gets there faster. Conversely, the black body will cool down faster when taken out of sunlight. So, the Nikon lens heats up faster than the Canon L, but both eventually reach the same temperature and the Nikon cools down faster.
1. (less likely) The release of a new 100-400 will take some time after all because there's no immediate market pressure
2. (more likely) The new 100-400 will be much more expensive, i.e. generating more profit for Canon, and will be an "upgrade" to the existing lens rather than a replacement on the same level - more like 24-70 mk1 to mk2.