I'm new here and I did some research before I opened this new thread. I didn't find a topic related to the question I have, hence this new topic.
Last year I upgraded to the RF Holy Trinity of Canon at f/2.8. I traded in my equivalent Tamron f/2.8 G2 lenses. I was happy to see that I got very good trading in deals from my local photo shop, although I still had to cough up a lot of money. But the RF's are brilliant!
Now I'm in doubt whether to trade in my (fourth and last) Tamron, the SP 150-600mm Di VC USD Canon for the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 IS USM or not.
The Tamron has 100mm more focal length and at 600mm it still has f/6.3 whereas the Canon has "only" f/7.1 at 500mm. It would feel like it would be a downgrade. But is it a downgrade, apart from the 100mm less foacal length?
Maybe it's a stupid question but before coughing up another substantial amount of money, I would like to be well-informed. Thanks so much in advance!
Last year I upgraded to the RF Holy Trinity of Canon at f/2.8. I traded in my equivalent Tamron f/2.8 G2 lenses. I was happy to see that I got very good trading in deals from my local photo shop, although I still had to cough up a lot of money. But the RF's are brilliant!
Now I'm in doubt whether to trade in my (fourth and last) Tamron, the SP 150-600mm Di VC USD Canon for the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 IS USM or not.
The Tamron has 100mm more focal length and at 600mm it still has f/6.3 whereas the Canon has "only" f/7.1 at 500mm. It would feel like it would be a downgrade. But is it a downgrade, apart from the 100mm less foacal length?
Maybe it's a stupid question but before coughing up another substantial amount of money, I would like to be well-informed. Thanks so much in advance!
Last edited: