CraigHarris

CraigHarris

Joined on Feb 7, 2012

Comments

Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
On Tamron releases image-stabilized 24-70mm F2.8 zoom article (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photogaz: How many stops is the IS? Don't Tamron mention these things in their press release?

Whilst 4 stops would be awesome, 2 stops would be enough to make a difference; I think they should publish this information, but I'm happy to wait for a review for such as I won't consider a purchase without reading in-depth reviews anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 20:13 UTC
On Tamron releases image-stabilized 24-70mm F2.8 zoom article (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: Ive been shooting the Nikkor 24-70 for almost 3 years, i dont think ive ever needed IS/VR once. If you are shooting under 1/60, youre going to get motion blur from your subject... so, nice sharp background and blurry subjects.

Some subjects don't move; others can be frozen with flash ... plus when shooting in dark rooms, I'd rather have 1 tiny bit of motion blur in the frame than the whole photo destroyed by camera shake.

IS isn't needed all the time, but there's a switch to cover than ... then when conditions require such you can still take great photos :)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 20:10 UTC
On Tamron releases image-stabilized 24-70mm F2.8 zoom article (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

T34: Well, so you think this lens will be the equal of a Nikon or Canon 24-70mm f2.8? Guess again! You get what you pay for in Life, Tamron lenses are Junk! For every Ten they make, maybe your lucky enough to get one that's actually sharp, the rest will be soft. Don't waste your money!

If you actually bothered trying them before writing them off, you'd find that Canon's cheaper lenses are far lower quality than 3rd party lenses.

The appeal for this lens though is that there isn't a Canon equivalent!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 20:07 UTC
On Tamron releases image-stabilized 24-70mm F2.8 zoom article (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steve oliphant: oooops 82mm filter tilt no good waste of money the filter will kill you trust me i know i sell them ................

Compared to prices of lenses an 82mm UV is not that bad.
The only other round filter of use these days is a CPL, and ND, ND Grad & CPLs can easily be used in square format and an 82mm adaptor for such is a mere $10

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 20:04 UTC
On Tamron releases image-stabilized 24-70mm F2.8 zoom article (190 comments in total)

I'm struggling to believe the attitude of most people's responses - how can anyone think IS is useless? People seem to be slagging off scenarios without actually encountering them and comparing the image quality with and without IS for a given situation.

The 1 over focal length rule is an absolute bare minimum which I don't like being close to as it's not good enough, to get away with 1/70th at 70mm you have to hold the camera extremely still ... almost everyone should see a better image at 1/200; however IS allows sharp photos at 1/10th meaning the photographer can concentrate on the content of the image and not worry about other factors that might kill the photo quality.

IS can make a massive difference in many situations - what I really want is Canon's 24-70 f/2.8L with IS, but they clearly aren't going to bothering offering it which means I then need to carry a 24-105 f/4L IS plus a selection of primes for when f/4 is not fast enough.

I eagerly await the review of this lens.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 19:59 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

WaleedEssam: One question:

Does the new 24-70 extend when zooming or has internal zoom?

Yes it extends - the spec says there's a lock switch to keep it at 24mm instead of it sliding itself to 70 while walking around.
I really wanted an internally zooming version as then I could put it in a waterproof housing.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2012 at 19:50 UTC

Why didn't they just put IS on the 24-70? it would render both those primes pointless and would justify the otherwise insane price tag on the new glass ... I'm utterly disappointed. Having to buy a 24-105 f/4 just to get a sensible zoom with IS is really annoying.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2012 at 19:49 UTC as 44th comment | 4 replies
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7