superstructure5

I am curious to know thoughts from all you UHH ppl!! I am wanting to get a 70-200MM lens for my Canon T3i....Looked at the Canon lens and also the Tamron lens. Any thoughts??

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I shoot Nikon but you will usually get better glass going with Canon. You probably see a significant price difference. There is a reason for that. Save your shekels and get the Canon. I bought a Tamron 10-24mm wide angle lens. I have now seen the difference bt. that and the Nikon 10-24mm lens. It may not have been available when I bought mine but it is def. superior and just a few hundred dollars more. Check the reviews on each. I read Ken Rockwell.

hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama

I have the Tamron 70-200mm for Pentax and love it check the reviews it actually compares very favorably against the big brands

SteveR Loc: Michigan

As much as you like your Tamron, it will not compare favorably against the Nikon 70-200mm nor the Canon. According to Ken Rockwell, the Canon is the "general purpose tele zoom use by most pros who use Canon." He does say it is big, heavy, and expensive.

hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama

You have to broaden your horizons Ken Rockwell is not the be all end all read some of the other reviews there are many reviews out there that contradict what Ken Rockwell says

larrycumba

Which Canon, 2.8 or 4.0?

hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama

Here is just one from SLRgear.com

Price is obviously the major consideration when considering a lens in this category, and with exceptional results for image quality, it's not just about the money when considering the Tamron 70-200mm ƒ/2.8. Sharpness results meet and even exceed those for ''brand-name'' manufacturers, however the concession is build quality and autofocus speed. Professionals may require these; everyone else may not. Either way, if it's image quality you're after, the Tamron 70-200mm ƒ/2.8 delivers, and doesn't hit too heavily on the pocketbook.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I really don't care what SLRgear says. I wouldn't bet a Tamron over a similar Canon any day. Don't believe every hype you read. Who the heck was the reviewer, anyway? Can you put a name on it?

Put it this way. From what I've seen, you won't get into seriously good glass until you pay serious money. There may be "value" lenses, but amateurs buy "value" lenses. The one exception I may have come across is the Sigma 150-500mm zoom. If you want those sharp, crisp photos that everybody oohs and aahs about, get the good glass.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

2.8. It's the "L" lens. We were also discussing the Tamron 70-200 f2.8.

hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama

I could care less what Rockwell says he is not the one and only expert.

Have you read any reviews other than Ken Rockwell or do you rely soley on his recommendations I did not say that the Tamron beat the Canon I said it rates favorably with the name brands at at a 1/3 of the price value for the money it rates even higher.
In some test the Sigma and Tamron out perform the Canon and Nikon the only complaints I can find on the Tamron is the focus is slower that than the Canon very little difference in IQ.

hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama

Not all people need a Professional Lens because we are not all Pro's like you.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I didn't say that I was a pro. You just can't compare a value lens to a professional lens. That's all that I was saying. There are amateurs out there, too, who want the best glass, and their photos are the ones that are crisp and sharp. Everybody wanting c&c who is just slightly out of focus? They aren't the ones shooting the best glass. Put together an amateur who has taken the time to learn how to shoot along with good glass and it's amazing what photos he/she can produce. I know, I have friends who have taken amazing photos and are amazingly creative.

superstructure5

Canon 2.8

CanonJC

Exactly right! It is depend on his affordable $$$.

:)

FredCDobbs Loc: Los Angeles area.

I like Ken Rockwells site. I've sent him money because he helped me a lot, but I eventually became aware that he is very limited in his reviews. Ken says Canon and Nikon are good? Let me write that down, I had no idea ("^).
His web site is a business and he gets support viewers and he has said that he gets support from retailers and manufacturers but I don't think this means he is not giving an honest opinion. He mentioned this compensation when he was concerned about a new Calif law that would effectively shut him down, can't remember all the details. Another moronic California law. Good for Ken. I'm glad to see someone create a business out of nothing and do well. He does people a good service and supports his family.
In the early days of the site, there seemed to be a bigger variety of manufacturers products than now. I bought my first little digital camera from his review. A Casio XLM 750. Great camera at the time. I don't think I've seen a word from Ken in years on Casios products, or Sony or Panasonic, etc. Some of the reviews of other older products are getting long in the tooth and there is not update. I hope he has not fallen into a mode where he only does a review when it puts something in his rice bowl.
I used to write product reviews in magazines and those manufacturers, except for the occasional call tag, never asked for the product back. Why? A cost of doing business, advertising. They wanted their product mentioned in the article, and the people running the magazine paid virtually nothing for the review. The writer got products or what's the motivation to write the article?
In a case like that, your ethics are to return and or not talk positively about something that is truly bad. Some people will tell the truth about some sketchy products and some will just pass on the faulty product and return and let the buyer figure it out. If it's a good product, you give the manufacturer their due. No one wants to turn off an advertiser.
For twenty years I manufactured high end audio products. The big review magazines said that even though they took advertising money from the manufacturers of the products they reviewed, that you didn't need to buy advertising to get reviewed. They threw in enough no advertised products to make that claim credible but if you were not one of the red herrings, just try to get a review without dropping $5 or $10k and kissing the hind quarters of the publisher.The review never happened. Many of the small newsletter audio reviewers (Less financally successful - no advertising) were actually much more honest about reviewing little known products and you let them keep the product for their trouble if they wanted it.
It's all commerce one way or another. It's how things work.
The point to this ramble is the fact that Ken does not review a product does not mean it is not good. It means you have to check multiple sources, give them whatever weight you wish and plunk down your money like we all do.