Ray Amos wrote:
>
> I'm sure you both have used the current Canon extenders, the II's, to make your
>comparisons when you say "every bit as good as".
When I bought my Tamron, the II was not available. I have compared with
a few shots with the older Canon.
I wonder what makes the Tamron more versatile?
It is flat and doesn't need the depth at the end of the lens as the
Canon does.
As far as cost, I recently sold my old Canon 2x for 20% less than I paid
for it. In the long run, when you consider resale value, trade-in value
or even the ability to sell at all, I wonder how much you save, if any?
How sure are you that the new 500 f/2.8 IS lens will work properly with
the Tamron while attached to your new 1D? Don't you get tired of
sending it back for retrofit?
> And last, when someone ask you what you're using, do you say Canon or do you say
>Canon/Tamron/Tokina?
I generally don't consider resale or trade in value when I buy things.
Not even cars. (My '94 Thunderbird has almost 98K on it. The '95 'bird
had over 100K when my grandson took it over.....) Or my Ham Radio
gear.
I won't be buying a 1D in the near future, nor will I be buying a 500
f/2.8 IS. Can't justify the cost since I don't use these as my primary
income producer. If I did, I would feel different. But since my wife
bought me the -3 last year I do have almost all L glass, 28-70 f/2.8,
70-200 f/2.8, 300 f/4. The rest is consumer grade Canon except the
Tokina 19-35. Don't know where the 100mm macro falls.
Bob
--
//////
( 0 0 )
-73 de Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organized people are just too lazy to look for things.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
