Henry M. Hertz: i have tested this lens against other 400+mm lenses... and there is simply no alternative in this price range.
no other tamron or sigma 400+ mm lens around 1000 euro can compete with the tamron 150-600mm at the long end. the closest is the EF 100-400mm from canon.
sure my 400mm f2.8 is better.. suprise suprise.but there is no other 400+mm lens for ~1000 euro that can keep up with the tamron.
the EF 100-400mm canon is worse at 400mm than the tamron.the tamron is at 450-500mm as good as my EF 100-400 copy was at 400mm.my tamron is really really sharp at 200-300mm.that´s why i sold my EF 100-400mm and kept the tamron.
i see this lens as direct competition to canons EF 100-400mm and it´s a great competition!!
for testchart shoots visit www.the-digital-picture.com.compare the tamron to the canon EF 100-400mm.
the EF 100-400mm and especially the EF 300mm f4 from canon show WAY MORE CA´s then the tamron.so i can not agree to the findings of this test concerning CA´s.
Has anyone compared this lens to the Sigma 50-500? I've got that lens and I'd like to know if it would be worth buying this lens.
I use a Canon 7D camera.
thanks for any info
This is just the latest example of the media exploiting innocent people to make money.
How many times have we seen family members of people who have died being ambushed at their front door by TV crews?
The bottom line is that while this is offensive it is no more so than the way the media have treated people in the past.
It's clear the major media only cares about their own profits and most major media reporters only care about their career advancement. The suffering they inflict on innocent people-- relatives of killing victims, relatives of people who die in disasters, people accused of crimes but with no criminal record, etc-- apparently means nothing to them.
On a less severe note are the paparazzi who refuse to acknowledge that even famous people have some right to privacy, at least when they're in their own homes.
openskyline: I have stopped using Adobe Photoshop for sometimes, LR is all I need.
No need to be rude! Sheese to each his own. I heavily process most of my "good" pictures and I really like what Photoshop can do but I know that some very good photographers can generate better pics than I do by just using LR.
Oh yeah one other thing. If she's right about all her expenses then all but 7k of her 50k income is effectively taxable since you can deduct business expenses .s I realize the tax situation is insane but I really doubt anyone pays $15k of taxes for a business that makes $7k of profits.
the numbers in the response are very odd.
1) 15k taxes on 50k income is a 30% average tax rate that seems high2) It appears that the photographer lives in the same place she processes her photos so unless she would otherwise live in a box under an overpass she really can't count that $72003) unless she only uses the car for business she really can't count the full $7200 car expense 4) i suspect the fraction of the time the photographer shoots weddings vs the time she wears those shoes is pretty small.5) I have no idea why she pays 2500 a year for high speed internet. I'd suspect something more like 50-100 a month6) the equipment cost is reasonable but when you add it up it's $11,300. Amortized over 24 weddings/year and 5 years that's $94/wedding.
On the other hand she is effectively charging ~$100/hr which is what you pay an automechanic who has a much higher overhead.
As a potential father of 3 brides I can assure you I won't pay $3k/wedding for photographers.