Two weeks ago I rented the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, and am now renting the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC. I haven't actually taken the Tamron out into the field yet, but first impressions testing it around the house are very favorable. Yes, 2.8 is softer compared to 4.0, but definitely nothing a little sharpening can easily fix without degrading the image quality. I also wouldn't say it's prohibitively soft in its own right; in fact it's only apparent when you compare it to 4.0 and higher. Compared to similar test shots taken when I had the Canon, I can't honestly say there's too much of a difference; maybe the Canon is sharper...but $500 sharper??? Hmmm.
So that's the big question. I'm finding the Tamron online for $620 while the cheapest Canon is $1100. Don't get me wrong; the Canon was awesome, and the Tamron is a lot louder when focusing, especially with the VC turned on, which can be disconcerting, especially when it sounds like it's "unwinding" after you take a shot. It seems slower than the Canon, but so far I haven't been in a situation where the low light will challenge it, so I won't find that out for a bit.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Lots of visitors
My website at brianricephoto.com had over 41,000 views in the last 30 days (April 9th through May 9th). Perpetual Change at the Bsider in April topped all galleries at 3867 hits. That's how many photos have been viewed by people not including myself (otherwise it'd probably be double that).
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)