completely understood. the tamron 17-50 is simply not in the same league as their elite offerings. It's like comparing the nifty fifty to the 50L, just no comparison when it comes to AF. For reference, the 24-70 is about as fast as the 50L (tested using a stopwatch), and the 70-200 is damn close to the 135L and 70-200mk2. the 70-200 tamron is very impressive, I cant really see paying 700-1000 more for the canon version, instead, some of that will be used to fund the 150-600. I can provide boring shots of my kids playing, but you wont see too many of those on my flickr stream.
if you can get over the fact that it doesnt have a red ring, the tamrons are excellent, and their stabilization is top notch. Feels like 3 stops on the 24-70, and 4 stops on the 70-200. @ 200mm it feels like I'm using a 50mm..... just so stable. With the 135, lots of shaking, but amazing images. Not going to sacrifice that lens, love it too much.
I also wont go for F4 lenses either, been shooting F2.8 for too long, and it's painful going back to an F4 lens. Not enough blur and low light abilities.
How have you found their focus accuracy and reliability? I'm sure they've worked pretty well since you're speaking highly of them. Anything you dislike about the lenses?
dude, it's not that much!
first, use https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php?t=1294479
greentoe to buy it.
pay $2130, and then get a $300 rebate. net $1830.
for the performance of the 24-70II, I'd pay list. it's that good.
basically, it is going to make me think about another serious change to my lineup.
at minimum, I could move one of my primes.
what do I love about it?
color contrast sharpness, yea yea yea, you knew that.
did I mention sharp? holy isht it's sharper than you expect.
the separation at 24mm with f2.8 is better than I thought it would be!
these are not epic shots...
I realize that....
overexposed, at least on my monitor where I am now...
calibrated monitor at home, they look true.
just showing you that you don't always need/want 1.2 or 1.4, especially during the day, obviously!
you can make great photos with f2.8.
this was shot at 41mm
this was shot at 24mm
blurred this girls sister out, at 24mm.
Nice shots! I saw them on your Instagram. My user name is JZPhotography on there.
The reason why I was looking at a prime is because I want to take a lot of portraits and candids of my older relatives in Lebanon. There will be plenty of times where I'll be indoors and have so-so lighting. That's where the 1.4 of a prime would come into play with my 5D3's high ISO abilities.
Do you think the 24-70L II can handle low light and produce nice images indoors without a flash? Any experience? I'll have to go through the lens sample thread and check the samples out.
Another option which is kind of a DUH moment is simply renting the 135L or 200LII for my vacation. It will allow me to use one of these bad boys and see how I like it. And it'll be vastly cheaper than buying one outright.
If I can't get my 16-35 4L IS at the beginning of the week starting 6/23, than I will probably purchase a 17-40L, use it for the vacation and then offload and pick up the 16-35 when I return.