Originally posted by nkull Also no hoods, no quick shift for focus, not sure of any other differences...
Hi nkull,
Thanks for the information. I just read about quick shift. I do not fully understand it. However, from what I was able to gather, it would be pretty useful for a beginner like me.
Regards,
radman
---------- Post added 03-21-14 at 02:11 PM ----------
Originally posted by BrianR Digital bodies can last 10+ years, there are people here still using *istD's. They tend to drop in value faster then lenses though. A $700 k5iis might be worth $300 (or less) in 4 or 5 years, but a $600 Tamron 70-200 may still fetch $500 after 4 or 5 years.
If they release a new, more, awesome 70-200, expect the price tag to rise. They recently released a new version for Nikon/Canon mounts that has new optics and adds shake reduction and a silent focusing motor. The price doubled.
Before jumping on the theoretical upgrade treadmill, remember whatever lens/camera you buy will still be just as capable 10 years from now as it is today. New stuff will come out, but that doesn't make the old stuff any less capable in absolute terms.
Hi BrianR,
That's great information. I appreciate the explanation. Nice point at the end...just because there may be another newer and better camera,,,the original is still just as good as it ever was, it did not all of the sudden become a "worse" camera.
Best,
radman
---------- Post added 03-21-14 at 02:19 PM ----------
Originally posted by crewl1 If you are planning to get the Tamron 2.8 zooms I am sure you will not be happy with the image quality of the kit lenses and probably won't take them out much.
The only reason to consider them is for the smaller size, and if they happen to be WR then you will be able to use them to shoot in rainy weather which you cannot do with the non weather proof Tamrons.
A more versatile lens that I do use quite a bit and sometimes is available as a kit is the DA 18-135 - it is WR, has good image quality and is a useful lens for family outings. I would put the money towards that one instead if it is available.
It will not replace the 2.8 zooms, regardless.
Hi crewl1,
What you are saying makes a lot of sense to me. Especially now that I realize that the kit lenses are NOT even as good as their corresponding non-kit options.
That being said, I was considering these kit lenses becauuse of the WR capabilities. You mentioned the 18-135 as a better option in comp to the 18-55 and 50-200. I think that one may not even have a DAL option.
Please comment on this thought - instead of a Tamron 70-200 mm (which I understand is an excellent option for indoor sports),,,instead I purchase a Pentax DA* 60-250.
Please tell me your thoughts on the 60-250 for indoor sports.
I imagine being able to get this WR lens for not much more than the Tamron 70-200 + the 18-135.
Obviously the Pentax has more range, but it is an F4.
Thanks again,
radman