Quick rebuttal

Started May 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,788
Like?
Re: Quick rebuttal
In reply to Logos007, May 18, 2012

Logos007 wrote:

Thanks for the replies!

Had the 16-28 once, found it extremely heavy and a bit soft - on the D700.

Yes, consider the new Tamron 24-70 VC, but nowadays there is a lot about good and bad copies, remember my Sigma 24-70 HSM: only the third copy was really good, have all my work for the whitewall artist-market done with the D700 and this lens.

Yeah -- there is the issue of QC, but Canon is not immune, either. PZ's test of the Tokina 16-28 / 2.8 on the 5D2 was very good:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff?start=1

and Sigma's QC seems to be among the worse of the lot (although my own experiences with Sigma lenses have been exceptional, save the Sigma 50 1.4), but the Tamron 28-75 / 2.8 is universally hailed.

However, PZ's test of the Tamron 17-50 / 2.8 VC (for crop) was disappointing compared to the non-VC version, so I don't know if this is evidence of poor QC again, or a change for the worse in the optical formula. Something to consider with the upcoming VC version of the Tamron 28-75 / 2.8 VC.

Canon would be wise to update the 17-40 / 4L with a 17-40 / 4L II IS that is as good as the 24-70 / 2.8L II seems to be. Who knows? That might be next up.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
No.New
TrueNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow