• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Lens

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Any comments on the justification for the extra $1000?

One is the latest version and includes stabilisation, the other is older (so that its price was chosen when the Yen to $ exchange rate was more favourable to you) and does not include stabilisation. Either one will put your Tamron to shame at 200mm and weights so much that you won't want to take them around.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
One is the latest version and includes stabilisation, the other is older (so that its price was chosen when the Yen to $ exchange rate was more favourable to you) and does not include stabilisation. Either one will put your Tamron to shame at 200mm and weights so much that you won't want to take them around.

Jerome,

Good advice. Canon lenses a good long term investments. I have both the 70-200 2.8L IS models, and frankly, there's not a lot of practical difference between them for my portrait work, which is between 2.8 and 5.6. Yes, one can prove the latest version is somewhat better, but I cannot clinch a shot with one that I can't to with another with my work. I like to know I have the fastest AF for serious commissioned classical music concert work where I have yo get the special pictures that cannot be missed. However, I never missed those shots anyway, the 1DII, 5D and 5DII and 7D cameras I use are so good anyway.

Of course, a 1Ds Mark II would be wonderful and even better……….. but I cannot afford it! :)



Howard,

I could give up one lens for an OPFr and you are close by! I also have an f 4.0 but no IS. That's just as wonderful and pocketable!

Asher
 
Thank you

Thanks to all you offered your input. Asher, how close are you? You've got a 4.0? I'd be immensely curious to see a comparison between the Tamron and the Canon with regard to image quality. I've got a Canon 600 that I (obviously) go to great lengths to stabilize, but the image quality is usually somewhere in the spectacular range. I'm hoping the Canon 70-200 will give me the same quality.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thanks to all you offered your input. Asher, how close are you? You've got a 4.0? I'd be immensely curious to see a comparison between the Tamron and the Canon with regard to image quality. I've got a Canon 600 that I (obviously) go to great lengths to stabilize, but the image quality is usually somewhere in the spectacular range. I'm hoping the Canon 70-200 will give me the same quality.

Get of the 405 at Santa Monica Blvd, that easy!

The f 4.0 I own is not IS. However, I have no issues getting tack sharp images. Are you tracking race cars or guys running with a ball in some sports game?

Asher
 
Top