KenjiS "Holy crap its long!"  More info | Dec 07, 2012 13:29 | #1 http://www.lensrentals.com …-tests-on-two-new-70-200s Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
LOG IN TO REPLY |
pdrober2 Goldmember  2,318 posts Joined Nov 2010 Location: Durham, NC More info | Dec 07, 2012 13:43 | #2 very interesting... looks like tamron is using sig figs on their focal lengths Fujifilm X-T1 | 23 | 27 | 56 | 90 | 55-200
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 07, 2012 13:49 | #3 This guys a hoot!!!! ". Also, as always, my summary comes first, for those of you who have trouble reading more than 150 words without a picture." _
LOG IN TO REPLY |
joeblack2022 Goldmember 3,005 posts Likes: 5 Joined Sep 2011 Location: The Great White North More info | Dec 07, 2012 13:53 | #4 KenjiS wrote in post #15338551  More like a 70-175... So that's how they price their lenses lower, something had to give somewhere! Joel
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 07, 2012 13:59 | #5 joeblack2022 wrote in post #15338632 So that's how they price their lenses lower, something had to give somewhere! (The article also mentioned the Sigma 70-200 measuring out at about 185mm.) Did it? i missed that Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Blubayou Senior Member 369 posts Joined Oct 2012 Location: Saratoga Springs, NY More info | Dec 07, 2012 13:59 | #6 I just posted in one of the other threads on this lens, in response to KenjiS posting this info/link.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 07, 2012 14:00 | #7 Blubayou wrote in post #15338652 I just posted in one of the other threads on this lens, in response to KenjiS posting this info/link. Is MTF data actually done at marked FL's or at actual FL's? I'd be curious how the Canon results would look at the same actual FL of the Tamron (~175mm). Perhaps that's how the 3rd party manufacturers are trying to produce "sharper" lenses, by shortening the FL on the long end. I'm unsure entirely how it is done unfortunately, I believe its tested at a marked focal length using a standardized test pattern which is framed the same no matter the focal length, a program then analyzes the images captured.. Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 07, 2012 14:00 | #8 Blubayou wrote in post #15338652 I just posted in one of the other threads on this lens, in response to KenjiS posting this info/link. Is MTF data actually done at marked FL's or at actual FL's? I'd be curious how the Canon results would look at the same actual FL of the Tamron (~175mm). Perhaps that's how the 3rd party manufacturers are trying to produce "sharper" lenses, by shortening the FL on the long end. It makes one wonder........ _
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Blubayou Senior Member 369 posts Joined Oct 2012 Location: Saratoga Springs, NY More info | Dec 07, 2012 14:00 | #9 it did briefly mention the Sigma measuring out to 185mm (as joeblack said)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
joeblack2022 Goldmember 3,005 posts Likes: 5 Joined Sep 2011 Location: The Great White North More info | Dec 07, 2012 14:01 | #10 KenjiS wrote in post #15338651 Did it? i missed that Most lenses arent what they say they are, I was more shocked by the comparison image... Fifth paragraph: The Tamron 70-200 (really it’s175mm) f/2.8 is also exceptionally sharp, and maintains its sharpness throughout the zoom range, even at the long end. Just be aware the long end is not 200mm. We have the Canon and Nikon lenses all measured at about 195mm, while the Tamron is about 175mm. For what it is worth, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is about 185mm. My comment was tongue-in-cheek but the measurements sure make one stop and reconsider. Joel
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Blubayou Senior Member 369 posts Joined Oct 2012 Location: Saratoga Springs, NY More info | Dec 07, 2012 14:03 | #11 It does seem to be a bit of a shortcut (shortening FL) to have "better" sharpness. I wonder if their intent was to beat the Canon on this type of test so they could claim better sharpness.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BrickR Cream of the Crop 5,935 posts Likes: 115 Joined Mar 2011 Location: Dallas TX More info | Dec 07, 2012 16:07 | #12 I imagine I'll be picking this up. The less than 200mm length on the long end won't affect what I shoot My junk
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Blubayou Senior Member 369 posts Joined Oct 2012 Location: Saratoga Springs, NY More info | Dec 07, 2012 16:26 | #13 It appears that the estimate of 175mm was off. Roger replied to my question and said that it actually tested out to 186mm for the Tamron vs 199mm for the Canon, so it's not as short as they originally thought.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mikecabilangan Goldmember  1,378 posts Joined Apr 2010 Location: Metro Manila More info | Dec 07, 2012 16:48 | #14 iirc, the canon 70-200 f/4 IS was "longer" than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS I ... or did i get that one backwards ... either way, the 200mm from canon isn't exact as well. camera bag reviews
LOG IN TO REPLY |
genjurok Senior Member 537 posts Joined Jan 2010 More info | Dec 07, 2012 17:05 | #15 I'll probably use my 70-200 IS II for a few years, then find a good deal on the Tamron 70-200 VC, then sell the 70-200 IS II. 6D
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is semonsters 1484 guests, 132 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
