Rumors > Third Party Manufacturers
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Announced
Chewngum:
It has an Aussie street pprice and looks to maybe be available.
http://www.digidirect.com.au/camera_lenses/tamron/di_lenses/tamron_sp_24-70mm_f28_di_vc_usd_lens_-_canon
You saw it here first!
Dylan777:
--- Quote from: AvTvM on February 18, 2012, 06:36:06 AM ---
--- Quote from: AJ on February 07, 2012, 11:16:46 PM ---
--- Quote from: briansquibb on February 06, 2012, 08:02:12 PM ---IS on a zoom that maxes at 70mm - shake may disappear but motion blur wont ...
--- End quote ---
... and motion blur can be a good thing if it's intentional. If fact it opens up a world of possibilities.
Villagers dancing around the maypole. Portland Parish, Jamaica
--- End quote ---
great shot, love it! Also afully agree with the point you make and demonstrate so well with this picture.
My opinion:
* IS is always useful, in any lens
* IS is NOT big and heavy see for example the EF 70/200/4 L IS vs. non-IS - same size, just 55grams more weight (on a 760g telezoom)
* IS does NOT cost optical performance - again see 70-200/4L IS optically superior to the non-IS version
* IS does not add a lot to manufacturing costs, even though Canon massively overcharges for the feature. See Tamron and Sigma lenses with optical stabilization
* IS should be standard in all new lenses coming from one of the 2 camera manufacturers that chose not to offer in-body stabilization (Ca/Ni)
I do look forward to seeing reviews of the new Tamron 24-70 VC and to the price of the lens.
Competition is good!
--- End quote ---
[/color]
+1...can't wait to see what this lens can do ;)
smirkypants:
Really interested in this lens. A girl I've sort of been dating does a lot of birthday parties in hideous, hideous light. She isn't very strong and a 5D2 + 24-70 + 580EX II is actually a lot for her to handle for a couple of hours. I know that for all of us he-men, slinging that around is nothing, but when you don't have a lot of strength, camera shake becomes a problem.
So... I just don't get why anyone would be against IS. I really don't. Maybe YOU don't need it, but there is a lot of insinuation that you must be some kind of crappy photographer to want it. Sorry, but my girl isn't a crappy photographer; in fact, she's a fantastic photographer. She just has a model's build and she could use a little IS in low light to keep from having to throw out a lot of blurry photos.
Can't wait to see the reviews.
dilbert:
Readers of this thread should also read here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5389.0
moreorless:
--- Quote from: AvTvM on February 18, 2012, 06:36:06 AM ---* IS does NOT cost optical performance - again see 70-200/4L IS optically superior to the non-IS version
* IS does not add a lot to manufacturing costs, even though Canon massively overcharges for the feature. See Tamron and Sigma lenses with optical stabilization
--- End quote ---
As far as the first point goes the 70-200 f/4 IS is a much newer and more expensive lens plus of course its a f/4 lens.
As far as the latter goes I'd mention the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and non VC versions, thats an example of "cheap IS" and it seems to be pretty much universally considered to have come at the cost of optical performance. The new Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS does deliver performance near to the Canon but with less range and much less difference in price.
Seems to me that while adding IS to a lens need not be expensive doing so without damaging optical performance on more advanced optics is not.
Both Canon and Nikon do IMHO seem to be missing out on a market creating more affordable FF zooms though, I can understand it to some extent hoping that the brand will pursuade users to pickup a more expense higher end product but something like the new 24-70 does seem to be pushing that to me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version