- Messages
- 17,227
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Here Phil, in the long run:
http://janicewhite.hubpages.com/hub/why-white-bread-is-bad-for-you
Same. If Tamron really want my money, it better be 1200 or under. As that would be half the price almost, of the Nikon VR II. I'm holding out for reviews and tests. Don't need a 70-200 just yet.
http://janicewhite.hubpages.com/hub/why-white-bread-is-bad-for-you
Back on topic.
Both these Lenses intrigue me but I really need to see prices.
If the 70-200 comes in at under a grand and has decent VC and AF speed I would certaily conisder it over a used, and now quite old, 70-200 VR mk 1 (or I guess the f4 IS if I was a canon man?) The sigma OS lens is now £899 UK stock so I can see this as doable after the prices settle.
The Nikon 105 micro is a shade under £600 grey and about the same over for UK stock. For the Tamron to be worth getting it would have to be not a penny over £500 and also offer at least the IQ of the old one which I understand to be excellent, but not quite as good as the Nikon. I like how it's now an IF lens too, I don't like the idea of an extending macro for close work (I don't have a dedicated macro yet but the concept puts me off)
Both are listed as weather resistant too which is a plus over the sigma options as far as I am aware. The 70-200 also looks to have the focus ring at the front I think which is more OEM style too.
If these also have full time MF (the focus ring moving in my hand bugs me) and keenly priced I think I'm probably sold.
Same. If Tamron really want my money, it better be 1200 or under. As that would be half the price almost, of the Nikon VR II. I'm holding out for reviews and tests. Don't need a 70-200 just yet.