Newsflash...Don backs Canon Lenses

Boys....you heard it here first. It would seem that Don has turned over a new leaf and will no longer recommend Tamron Lenses over Canon Lenses, when used on a Canon body.

A Quote taken from the Don on the Sony Forum

"Let me tell you a little teeny tiny secret ... SONY is a major shareholder in the TAMRON lens corporation ... and that TAMRON has made several previously labeled/packaged "Minolta"-lenses and "SONY"-lenses.

SO ... bearing that in mind, which company would have a more "in-depth" relationship with the aforementioned SONY?

TAMRON ... it just works better ... on a SONY. (You can also ask "Sparkie" how well Quantaray/SIGMA lenses hold up under the riggers of being mounted on a SONY body.) A lot of users prefer the TAMRON 17-50. The alternative isn't the SIGMA, but the SONY CZ 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 (which is almost double the cost).

Hope this helps in your decision."

From this, I can only assume the same logic can be applied to Canon :)

Calling Don....Calling Don :p

LOL caught

Hey!!! I just saw a pig fly by my window!!

I had some good luck with Canon and the TAMRON lenses, but nowhere near as nice as they work on the Minolta/SONY bodies. If you want to pay Canon's prices for their glass, you are welcome to. I was not interested in doing that and having to support "in-the-lens-IS" in every lens (and absolutely nothing for low-end PRIMES and MACROs). To me, that has always been a problem with Nikon and SONY. It should be and either/or ... for IS.

Can you just imagine spending $2300 for a EF 85mm f/1.2L USM II lens ... mounted on an $8000 EOS 1Ds MkIII ... and still having to tolerate camera shake? With no solution at all, except going to a tripod?

Then some person with A200 ($599) and a TAMRON SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di ($400) takes a better image? Gawd ... not on my watch. This is so stupid a fight I cannot even stand it.

If your lens doesn't have IS in it, you could use the "in-the-body-IS" to accomplish it.

If your lens does have it ... the camera body's IS would shut off and lock the sensor, so the lens could do it.

Has Canon done this? Uh, nope.

Any plans to do it? Uh, still nope.

Will Don ever buy a Canon system, again, that doesn't offer this option? C'mon, what do you think? :rolleyes:

Enjoy your photography, however expensive or difficult it is. :D

I would like in-body IS BUT I realise this won't be practical on say a 5D or a 1DMk3s for example. Larger sensors have superior optical quality.

Thus I am happy to use in-lens IS instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonSchap

Can you just imagine spending $2300 for a EF 85mm f/1.2L USM II lens ... mounted on an $8000 EOS 1Ds MkIII ... and still having to tolerate camera shake? With no solution at all, except going to a tripod?

---

It's $1750 and with a hole that wide you shouldn't need IS... your shutter speed should be high enough with all of that light blasting through! I see your other points, but in lens IS has it's advantages too, but it's been discussed already... no need for another battle.

BOTH ... you guys just are not glomming on to the entire idea ... you keep duking it out over one OR the other.

WHY NOT BOTH?

In the body & in the lens?

Let the lens decide which one gets used!

Please, read what I write and NOT what you think I am writing. I have been VERY clear about this item, over the past two years ... and you are STILL missing the point. Like they say, "You can lead a horse to water, but the mountain is not coming to Mohammad" or something like that. :rolleyes:

PARADIGM SHIFT! No battle, just TELL Canon to get off their disinterested rearends and do it! They are not seeing another dollar of my money until they do.

I offer this as PROOF that "Common Sense" is not all that common.

Enjoy

Calm down buddy, I was mainly correcting your 85mm price and stating that it didn't need IS, lol.

As for the In body IS vs LENS IS vs Both, well... with in lens IS being capable of more stops...

haha let me quit. You have a interesting point but there are other issues. Who wants to buy an IS lens if they have an IS body. Look at the price dif between the 70-200 f/4L AND the f/2.8L with and without IS. Those two cases would work (since canon offers both), but canon would have to make tons more of the same lenses without IS because no one wants to pay for something they MAY find redundant.

But ... (and that's a big ol' but) you and the rest of the Canon "washed" have already committed to supporting IS-in-the-lens, because it is soooooo much better over in-the-body-IS, so this should be no issue at'all. RIGHT? :confused:

If Canon cannot even do this for their smaller APS-C sensors, there is no way in hell they are planning it for the bigger ones, so the EOS 1 bunch is safe, too. Even SONY has taken a full year to introduce the A900 (due in September).

Like I said, Canon does not have to worry about my return and using their lenses. Others can bear the pain of the cost and things are NOT getting any cheaper out there, last time I looked. Oops, there, I looked again. Nope, no cheaper. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonSchap

But ... (and that's a big ol' but) you and the rest of the Canon "washed" have already committed to supporting IS-in-the-lens, because it is soooooo much better over in-the-body-IS, so this should be no issue at'all. RIGHT? :confused:

If Canon cannot even do this for their smaller APS-C sensors, there is no way in hell they are planning it for the bigger ones, so the EOS 1 bunch is safe, too. Even SONY has taken a full year to introduce the A900 (due in September).

Like I said, Canon does not have to worry about my return and using their lenses. Others can bear the pain of the cost and things are NOT getting any cheaper out there, last time I looked. Oops, there, I looked again. Nope, no cheaper. :rolleyes:

---

Hey Don, how much you wanna bet that Sony's FF camera won't have in-body IS either?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonSchap

Can you just imagine spending $2300 for a EF 85mm f/1.2L USM II lens ... mounted on an $8000 EOS 1Ds MkIII ... and still having to tolerate camera shake? With no solution at all, except going to a tripod?

---

Yes.

I don't know how I ever get a decent shot with such a problematic set-up.

I must be a genius. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cwphoto

Hey Don, how much you wanna bet that Sony's FF camera won't have in-body IS either?

---

hmmm...i dunno about that c-dub. if it doesnt, its DOA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rooz

hmmm...i dunno about that c-dub. if it doesnt, its DOA.

---

I'd like to see the engineering behind how they get to move the sensor outside the image circle and still get decent results.

well i;m no expert but if it doesnt have SSS, then why bother ? apart from Don and a few other sony/ KM diehards i cant see it selling too many units unless they go in for a sub $2k camera. hell...even then, i'd take a d300 over it. SSS is the ONLY thing keeping sony in the market. without it, well...even Don wouldn;t have one.

CW, I'll bet you something usable ... especially for you ... a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III ... the most base and popular telephoto lens available. You could build your next empire upon it.

What you going to pony up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonSchap

CW, I'll bet you something usable ... especially for you ... a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III ... the most base and popular telephoto lens available. You could build your next empire upon it.

What you going to pony up?

---

600/4 IS. That's how confident I am.

Tell me how you think they are going to have a sensor move out of the image circle and still provide a useable image?

Won't happen.

Okay ... I know you aren't getting a lot of work out of that lens, but same here. And shipping on that bad boy is going to be killer. LOL

Anyway, the A900 was last seen in Victoria, Canada ... carried by Sasquatch (aka "Big Foot"), sporting a nifty new CZ 24-70mm f/2.8 on it. So, the elusive camera is ... out there. :eek:

Attachment 37529