Joseph Tainter wrote: > Joseph Tainter wrote: > > http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/release_2007/0307_a001.html > > > > It's a macro, like the new Sigma. According to tests, the Sigma achieved > > its macro capability by design compromises elsewhere. It is weak at the > > long end. If I were shopping for such a lens (I have the older, > > non-macro Sigma EX 70-200 F2.8), I would rather that it be good at 200 > > mm than that it have macro capability. > > > > So I will be interested to see what reviews say of the Tamron--whether > > Tamron also made design compromises to achieve macro capability. > > > > Joe > > > > Tamron's pulled off the 'not-quite-macro' already with the 28-75 and > 17-50, bth of which are superb lenses. I don't see why theywouldn't wit > the 70-200. > > -Adam > > ----- > > Tamron might do a better job. When they make a lens similar to a Sigma > model, they often seem to do it better. But if I was in the market for > such a lens, I would wait for reviews. If it was a non-macro, I might > buy it even before reviews come out. > > I wonder what a 200-500 mm F2.8 from Tamron would be like? > > Joe >
I've generally been very impressed with anything that's received the SP designation. The only exception is the 11-18, and that's more a case of a competent lens overshadowed by even better lenses than an actually poor design. I've little hesitation about buying the 70-200. The only reason I won't is I have little use for one. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
