it was a rhetorical question Don. i know they dont make one. you were just cooking the books again to make built in IS seem appealing and the CaNikon stabilised lens look super expensive and the ONLY option available to that system.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonSchap
you want to compare a budget, bottom shelf tamron 200-500 lens with an exotic piece of glass like a canon or nikon 500mm f4 lens. which are 2 stops faster and are optically impecable compared to the tamron paperweight.
so if a canikon person so wanted a budget 200-500 lens they could just buy an optically stabilised sigma 200-500. so your whole experiment is pretty pointless and you're wrong again Don. not having a good run are you mate ?
Iso - auto
Printable View
-
03-08-2009, 09:14 PMRooz
-
03-08-2009, 09:20 PMDonSchapPhotographer's choice
I don't buy SIGMA ... it spends way too much time in transit and the SHOP! Sorry, it is not a consideration I would make. Check the gear list, Mate.
I am going to assume you buy their products ... and that is all well and good. I'm okay with what I have from TAMRON ... it works well enough on the SONY line of cameras. In fact, if you are tired of worrying about whether or not you have IS in your lens ... just make the change to SONY ... and that concern completely solves itself.
Just a name brand away, 'Rooz', and that should make your day. Remember, it is not the equipment, it is the photographer, right? -
03-08-2009, 09:29 PMRoozlol that was not the point of that thread and you know it. the point of your thread was:Quote:
Originally Posted by DonSchap
1. to show the benefits of a stabilised body with a long lens.
2. to try and suggest that for a canikon user to achieve the same result they would need $6500
3. to deceive people.
you did not point out that firstly, trying to compare a 500/4ISL wit ha tamron 200-500 is like comparing a ferrari to a rusted out, busted up skoda. and secondly that there is a much cheaper option than $6500.
no need to dig the hole any further buddy. you're all the way in now.:) -
03-08-2009, 09:51 PMDonSchapWeighing in on your glass ...
Like I said, you pick your poison. Personally, I will not saddle myself with SIGMA. It is a personal choice, of course ... just like Nikon is your flavor this time. SONY(Minolta) and TAMRON are pretty tight. I suspect one would not compromise the other. SIGMA is a lot like an uninvited guest or party crasher ... so you figure it out. If they finally have developed a OS lens for Canon and Nikon user community, that is great. At least, now, the non-IS bodies will have something they can cling to instead of just a high-priced PRIME.
Point is ... there was no waiting with the SONY ... Image Stability all the time ... no matter what A-mount lens you throw on it. From the oldest to the newest one in the line-up ... it still has stabilization. Get on board, pal! 24-year-old-AF-glass ... stabilized. Oh my ... light is fading ... better hunt out your IS-glass or bust out the tripod.
EDIT: Upon researching this new and still unavailable (it was merely announced) SIGMA APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM suggestion, it weighs a grunt-lifting 67 oz. versus the TAMRON's lightweight 43 oz. I tell ya, twenty-four more ounces of lens is no fun to slug around. It's like throwing an extra "70-300mm f/4-5.6" on the end of it. For what? Stabilization? -
03-08-2009, 09:53 PMTenDOh what a tangled web we weave...Again to support your statement you skew the costs in your favor. Everyone pretty much knows that B&H is the de-facto standard when it comes to price on camera gear, you yourself know this. But when it comes to supporting the $6500 price tag you placed on the Canon lens you chose Digital Rev instead of B&H. Why? because B&H is $823 cheaper than the price you've quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonSchap
I have to agree with Rooz, it's not even in the same ballpark to compare the Tamron and Canikon professional lenses. I'd take any number of Sigma lenses ahead of any Tamron lenses. The Siggy 120-300 f/2.8 lens was in the running for me until I decided on the cheaper:eek: Canon 100-400 IS. Show me the link to the Tammy professional telephoto primes... -
03-08-2009, 09:58 PMTenDHow do you explain all of the camera shake in your second photo of the Tauraco? You did take that with your stabilized body didn't you? No waiting for that camera shake. Maybe a little of the breathing exercises you made fun of me for utilizing would have helped.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonSchap
-
03-08-2009, 10:03 PMDonSchapOh gee ... a new "G"
The SONY 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM is the matching choice for that lens ... and clearly an excellent one, at that. TAMRON is not moving in that level and I believe you should be aware of it. Their line-up has not changed in several years, but with the addition of the budget conscious SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD MACRO, AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II VC LD and the new SP AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di-II LD.
Jim ... take a trip over to the SONY Style store and shoot an A900 with the 70-400 on it. See what a quality shot looks like. -
03-08-2009, 10:07 PMDonSchapDead-ducking the issueEven IS has its limitations. 1/10 second is dicey. I posted the image because I simply did not have another to post. She was gone!Quote:
Originally Posted by TenD
Next time, I suppose I could wait for the bird to expire. Would that make you happy? Then, if there is movement ... we shall all know it was the lensman, not the darting raptor.
Thanks for calling it to my attention, again! -
03-08-2009, 10:12 PMTenDI know what a quality shot looks like, I am capable of getting one with my Canon, Rooz is capable of getting one with his Noink(sorry couldn't resist), and a Sony is capable of shooting one. No need to go to a Sony style store, besides I think the nearest one is 400+miles and nearly 6 hours away.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonSchap
Oh and do you mean the $1500 Sony 70-400 non-IS lens for $40 more than the Canon offering that includes a more efficient IS system? -
03-08-2009, 10:14 PMTenDHey, you're the one calling my technique and system inferior. Why didn't you just bump up your ISO higher, or better yet just let the auto ISO take care of that for ya? Oh....sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonSchap