Originally posted by JeremytheIndian Why would the old Tammy 70-200 2.8 be worthless now? People love that lens.
I think he's referring to the 90 macro, but your statement still stands for that too...
Originally posted by liukaitc it is not marked as macro anymore. now the min focus distance is 1.3m. the old one is 0.9m
Yep - Just noticed that too. My Tammy 70-200 is 1:3 magnification, while this one is 1:8 - pretty big difference... maybe it helps with the long end distant subject resolution. By my 70-200's performance on distant subjects is really good, and midrange subjects is prime-quality. So I don't know... 1:3 magnification is pretty useful on my Tammy too.. My Sigma 50 has 1:8 magnification and it really sucks for trying to shoot pictures of bees when i tried to.
I don't care about VC - if it had silent fast motor like the Sigmas, I'd be more jealous. But this update seems sooooorta crappy if I may say so..
New lens weight: 1470g
Old lens weight: 1150g
New lens length and width is slightly less than old lens
New lens: 23 elements 18 groups
Old lens: 18 elemens 13 groups
Number of aperture blades is the same - both are rounded
New lens: Moisture and dust resistant (maybe this is a big deal)
Old lens: Vacuum cleaner
I hope it doesn't cost significantly more than the old 70-200, because then it'd be sorta cost ineffective - unless it somehow outperforms the old one by a huge margin, and I
highly doubt that.