tried the new Tamron 70-200mm on a Canon

egordon99 · 06-12-2008, 09:05 AM

I don't think Canon wants to "save the consumer money"

Seriously, IS/VR began in the old days of film (it was sorta hard to stabilize the film), so stabilizing the optics was pretty much the only answer. It would be nice if Canikon added stabilized sensors, but I don't think it's going to happen.

Here's a c&p of some stuff I wrote on a Canon forum about sensor-based IS vs. lens based -

I used to shoot Pentax, and it was great having a stabilized sensor, because my fast primes (50mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/2) were stabilized. I personally had great luck out to 300mm, but folks on pentaxforums.com seemed to have good luck shooting the Bigma at 500mm at slow shutter speeds handheld, so I would say that body-IS seems to work pretty well at long focal lengths. Also, once Tamron and Sigma release their 70-200mm for Pentax, you'd be able to buy a 70-200mm f/2.8 "IS" for $699 instead of $1699!

HOWEVER, having a stabilized viewfinder with a big heavy lens like the 100-400 is a GREAT advantage to lens-based IS, as once I turn IS off, the view @400mm through the viewfinder shakes like crazy! (maybe I just need to cut back on the coffee )

IS on the camera body? - Page 2 - Canon Digital Photography Forums

jgredline · 06-12-2008, 09:34 AM

The other day at a banquet I went to for my daughters graduation, I noticed this canon guy shooting with what looked like a sock covering his lens. Ever heard of that? I have not ever seen that and was going to ask him about it, but got distracted and forgot all about it until now.

Adam67 · 06-12-2008, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by vizjerei

so~ it is a great lens, and i heard it is around $500~600, which is nice. And I have no idea why I bid on the 50-135... while i told myself to wait for this lens... I am just stupid.

I don't know about that. At half the weight and 2" shorter I think the 50-135 makes a MUCH better walk around lens. 70-200 F2.8 is great....but I think the 50-135 would actually spend more time attached to the camera.

Not Registered · 06-12-2008, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by jgredline

The other day at a banquet I went to for my daughters graduation, I noticed this canon guy shooting with what looked like a sock covering his lens. Ever heard of that? I have not ever seen that and was going to ask him about it, but got distracted and forgot all about it until now.

Was he drunk?

Regarding the IS it is true that the prices for these ones are inflated. Actually SR in body is a bless for the pocket. Now, if you want to use the long lenses handheld then the IS is way more user friendly than the SR for the reasons that egordon explained. If somebody jumps to Canon or Nikon, one thing to consider is whether you want to pay 500usd extra for each IS/VR telephoto or you are better served using that money on getting a good tripod/monopod/head. I dont think that Canikon will change anytime soon to in body SR unless Sony and others start eating a huge part of the cake, and I really doubt this.

Albert Siegel · 06-12-2008, 10:40 AM

I was ablt to fix the links... but I seem to have lost the Tamron 200mm f2.8 file.

Arpe · 06-12-2008, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by jgredline

The other day at a banquet I went to for my daughters graduation, I noticed this canon guy shooting with what looked like a sock covering his lens. Ever heard of that? I have not ever seen that and was going to ask him about it, but got distracted and forgot all about it until now.

Perhaps he thought it was going to rain inside? (Not a problem with the DA* lenses of course)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New to Pentax from the Canon Camp Pentax equivalent to Canon 70-200mm f/4 L	frank2001	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	53	12-23-2009 05:07 PM
Canon FL 200mm f/3.5 on Canon 40D	Fixcinater	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	0	11-22-2009 03:56 PM
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 vs. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 vs Pentax 50-135mm f/2.8	nah	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	12-08-2008 01:03 AM

06-12-2008, 09:05 AM	#31
egordon99 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Outside of Philly Posts: 1,561	I don't think Canon wants to "save the consumer money" Seriously, IS/VR began in the old days of film (it was sorta hard to stabilize the film), so stabilizing the optics was pretty much the only answer. It would be nice if Canikon added stabilized sensors, but I don't think it's going to happen. Here's a c&p of some stuff I wrote on a Canon forum about sensor-based IS vs. lens based - I used to shoot Pentax, and it was great having a stabilized sensor, because my fast primes (50mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/2) were stabilized. I personally had great luck out to 300mm, but folks on pentaxforums.com seemed to have good luck shooting the Bigma at 500mm at slow shutter speeds handheld, so I would say that body-IS seems to work pretty well at long focal lengths. Also, once Tamron and Sigma release their 70-200mm for Pentax, you'd be able to buy a 70-200mm f/2.8 "IS" for $699 instead of $1699! HOWEVER, having a stabilized viewfinder with a big heavy lens like the 100-400 is a GREAT advantage to lens-based IS, as once I turn IS off, the view @400mm through the viewfinder shakes like crazy! (maybe I just need to cut back on the coffee ) IS on the camera body? - Page 2 - Canon Digital Photography Forums

06-12-2008, 09:34 AM	#32
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	The other day at a banquet I went to for my daughters graduation, I noticed this canon guy shooting with what looked like a sock covering his lens. Ever heard of that? I have not ever seen that and was going to ask him about it, but got distracted and forgot all about it until now.

06-12-2008, 09:58 AM	#33
Adam67 Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: MI Posts: 62	Originally posted by vizjerei so~ it is a great lens, and i heard it is around $500~600, which is nice. And I have no idea why I bid on the 50-135... while i told myself to wait for this lens... I am just stupid. I don't know about that. At half the weight and 2" shorter I think the 50-135 makes a MUCH better walk around lens. 70-200 F2.8 is great....but I think the 50-135 would actually spend more time attached to the camera.

06-12-2008, 10:00 AM	#34
Not Registered Guest	Originally posted by jgredline The other day at a banquet I went to for my daughters graduation, I noticed this canon guy shooting with what looked like a sock covering his lens. Ever heard of that? I have not ever seen that and was going to ask him about it, but got distracted and forgot all about it until now. Was he drunk? Regarding the IS it is true that the prices for these ones are inflated. Actually SR in body is a bless for the pocket. Now, if you want to use the long lenses handheld then the IS is way more user friendly than the SR for the reasons that egordon explained. If somebody jumps to Canon or Nikon, one thing to consider is whether you want to pay 500usd extra for each IS/VR telephoto or you are better served using that money on getting a good tripod/monopod/head. I dont think that Canikon will change anytime soon to in body SR unless Sony and others start eating a huge part of the cake, and I really doubt this.

06-12-2008, 10:40 AM	#35
Albert Siegel Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Tokyo Photos: Albums Posts: 372 Original Poster	I was ablt to fix the links... but I seem to have lost the Tamron 200mm f2.8 file.

06-12-2008, 05:48 PM	#36
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,452	Originally posted by jgredline The other day at a banquet I went to for my daughters graduation, I noticed this canon guy shooting with what looked like a sock covering his lens. Ever heard of that? I have not ever seen that and was going to ask him about it, but got distracted and forgot all about it until now. Perhaps he thought it was going to rain inside? (Not a problem with the DA* lenses of course)