RayValdez360 said:. and what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do..
Possibly equal 200mm compared to Canon? My experience with Tamron zooms is they fall short of the same focal length as the equivalent Canon zoom.
Upvote
0
RayValdez360 said:. and what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do..
yes because all companies really know what people want and offer it... damn every company must very successful since they all know and offer what people want because I a random user and consumer of cameras and lenses dont know what the hell people want.Sharlin said:I’m fairly sure Tamron knows roughly inifinity times better what sort of lenses are better business-wise than Random CR Commenter #85549 :
> smaller
> better in low light
Also, physics called. They’d have a word.
Then comes the option of why bother making something. I am just out of the loop, you guys made me realize the demand for 70-210 f/4 lenses.Don Haines said:RayValdez360 said:what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.
You realize that the demand for "smaller" conflicts with the demand for "better in low light".....
Also, the extra 10mm introduces a range that isn't around.......
Refurb7 said:But why put the zoom ring on the outside, further from the camera body? This is the opposite of what Canon does on its 70-200. And it seems less practical to have it out there.
RayValdez360 said:yes because all companies really know what people want and offer it... damn every company must very successful since they all know and offer what people want because I a random user and consumer of cameras and lenses dont know what the hell people want.
RayValdez360 said:Then comes the option of why bother making something. I am just out of the loop, you guys made me realize the demand for 70-210 f/4 lenses.Don Haines said:RayValdez360 said:what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.
You realize that the demand for "smaller" conflicts with the demand for "better in low light".....
Also, the extra 10mm introduces a range that isn't around.......
Sharlin said:RayValdez360 said:yes because all companies really know what people want and offer it... damn every company must very successful since they all know and offer what people want because I a random user and consumer of cameras and lenses dont know what the hell people want.
Random consumers usually know what they want. Unfortunately, often they think they're a representative sample of the general target audience even if they aren't. They're generalizing from a single data point (themselves). Large companies have many many more data points, both by having already sold a shitload of goods and by spending money on market studies. It's not that every product by every company is always a success, of course. But a priori they certainly know what they're doing better than random internet commentariat.
The EF 70-200 f/4 USM is a very popular lens and commonly thought to be one of the best bang-for-the-buck lenses Canon sells. The 70-200mm f/4 IS USM is also very well regarded and popular among the crowd who want a high quality tele without the huge extra bulk of an f/2.8 version. F/4 is plenty enough for even many professional purposes.
Talys said:Which begs to ask, what the price of a third party 70-200/4 with IS will be. The Canon is at a perfect price point ($1k). I don't think this will be a $500 lens, though if it were, that could be a spectacular alternative to consumer grade lenses. So where does it fall... $700? Is that enough of a price difference from the Canon?
RayValdez360 said:Then comes the option of why bother making something. I am just out of the loop, you guys made me realize the demand for 70-210 f/4 lenses.Don Haines said:RayValdez360 said:what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.
You realize that the demand for "smaller" conflicts with the demand for "better in low light".....
Also, the extra 10mm introduces a range that isn't around.......
Sharlin said:Talys said:Which begs to ask, what the price of a third party 70-200/4 with IS will be. The Canon is at a perfect price point ($1k). I don't think this will be a $500 lens, though if it were, that could be a spectacular alternative to consumer grade lenses. So where does it fall... $700? Is that enough of a price difference from the Canon?
My educated guess is: same price bracket as the EF 70-200mm f/4 non-IS. My bet is between $600 and $700. $500 is too low; $800 too high.
RayValdez360 said:Seriously what is this crap. Why even makes lens like this. and what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.
diness said:This is an interesting lens for me! I would buy the 70-200 f4L is in a heartbeat, except that part of the reason I would want the IS would be for video and it's too dang loud.
If this Tamron can be as sharp as the Canon, come in below it's price, and have silent VC with good AF, I would be very very intrigued by it!
slclick said:diness said:This is an interesting lens for me! I would buy the 70-200 f4L is in a heartbeat, except that part of the reason I would want the IS would be for video and it's too dang loud.
If this Tamron can be as sharp as the Canon, come in below it's price, and have silent VC with good AF, I would be very very intrigued by it!
Welcome to the CR Forum!
RayValdez360 said:Seriously what is this crap. Why even makes lens like this. and what is the 10 extra MM suppsoed to do. companies need to focus on making lens sharper, smaller, and better in low light and introduce ranges that arent around.