The "New Gear/Willy Waving" thread

I'm very tempted and I'm hoping for a solid review soon because in the US there is currently $200 off the 14-24mm. With current pricing the Nikon is only $600 more expensive and will likely maintain a higher resale factor.

Matt Granger did indeed like it but he didn't really give any detailed comparisons of sharpness/resolution which is fairly key for this kind of lens. The Nikon is legendary, one of the best zoom lenses ever made, so it will be tough for Tamron to get such results. The Tamron probably has better flare control and maybe distortion but I'm more worried about edge performance.

The other issue is the Nikon has a wide variety of 3rd part filter options, out of the box I don't think the Tamron will support any. If the the Tammy doesn't take off in a big way 3rd party support may always be lacking.

I'm very dubious of Tamron's QC though.



I'm also tempted just to get the Nikon 20mm f/1.8
 
stument said:
I'm seeing some good offers floating about for the 20mm f/1.8 around £600 to tempting!
Click to expand...

It is really tough to pick a Nikon UWA, there are so many goo choices!
The 14-24mm is just legendary, but is heavy and bulky. The 20mm offers stunning performance and 1.3-2.5 stops faster than the others, but 20mm is not 14mm and the while prime vs zoom tradeoff. The 18-35mm is incredibly compact and light yet offers exceptional performance for bargain dollars. And then the 16-35 sits in the middle between all this, not as optically superb as the 14-24mm but a useful range.


Now to throw the Tmron 15-30mm in the mix is really tough. Although there is currently only $600 between the Tamron and Nikon I am tempted by the Tamorn because that $600 will pay most of a Nikon 20mm. A 2 lens solution that opens ,ore optins and is more versatile
 
D.P. said:
It is really tough to pick a Nikon UWA, there are so many goo choices!
The 14-24mm is just legendary, but is heavy and bulky.
Click to expand...

Its only heavy and bulky if you have small hands and skinny arms.

Lets what I tell myself everytime i need help lifting it out of my bag.

You should feel it on a gripped D810. I worry about my tripod:D
 
stument said:
I'm seeing some good offers floating about for the 20mm f/1.8 around £600 to tempting!
Click to expand...
Cameraworld had them at £533. I couldn't resist at that price, they are still waiting on a shipment from nikon at present as these lenses are in short supply.

mattyg said:
Its only heavy and bulky if you have small hands and skinny arms.

Lets what I tell myself everytime i need help lifting it out of my bag.

You should feel it on a gripped D810. I worry about my tripod:D
Click to expand...
Should try a fast telephoto. A 300mm f2.8 weighs nearly 3kg. My old MF version is lighter at 2.5kg combined with my F5 it's over 4kg.
 
Whey hey, £1462 :)


xueV8x.jpg


Vw627M.jpg
 
I've had a 2nd hand splurge (wow, that sounds so wrong!) on lenses.
I've picked up a Canon 300mm f/4, Canon 18-135mm STM and most recently Canon 17-55 f/2.8.
Also bought a Speedlite 430EX II

So skint, so very skint...
 
Raymond Lin said:
Anyone has the new Tamron 15-24?
Click to expand...

Some detailed MTF charts here
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/just-the-lenses-tamron-15-30mm-f2-8




Tamron does well but it is certainly not beating the Nikon but it does well.
I'm not sure it is convincing at the current price point. It is about 70% of the cost of the Nikon right now which is not a big difference when resale value is taken into count, and for that you have to put up with a lens that is heavier, bigger, 3rd party QC and worse edges and not as wide. You do gain a little reach and VC but the reach is not quite enough IMO, if it went to 35mm like some other lenses in this class then it becomes a landscape walk about. The VC is nice but not a deal breaker because if I want a walk about lens then I want something lighter than the Nikon, not heavier.
 
Last edited:
MichaelAwkward said:
A relatively expensive week... My first L lens.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you will love it... this was, and still is, my only L series, and I use it all the time, as it has a good range for what I do, and its small and light enough not to be a burden to carry.

Now the new 100-400L ISII is out I'm looking at used V1 models, as I'm hankering for more reach... but I'll still keep the 70-200mm.
 
Last edited:
redline said:
I'm sure you will love it... this was, and still is, my only L series, and I use it all the time, as it has a good range for what I do, and its small and light enough not to be a burden to carry.

Now the new 100-400L ISII is out I'm looking at used V1 models, as I'm hankering for more reach... but I'll still keep the 70-200mm.
Click to expand...

The 70-300L IS is really nice as well, I got to use it a lot over the last week. I'd still take a 70-200 2.8L IS II over it, but the 70-300L is smaller and lighter which was nice.
 
peige said:
Sounds like a decent price :)

Does anyone know if if its worth going for the IS over this or is the non good enough?
Click to expand...

The non-IS is a superb lens and certainly "good enough".

The IS adds stabilization (obviously) plus circular aperture blades and weather sealing. It's also slightly sharper. Nothing wrong with the non-IS though, it might be the cheapest L but it's a superb bit of kit.
 
When I was Canon I had the 70-200 F4 non-IS for a while and I never really used it because it wasn't good enough in low light for my needs. Great when you are in good light though!
 
peige said:
Which lens is this exactly if you don't mind?

I'm wanting a lens for the summer, aircraft shows and a trip to wales. I don't want to go mad with money on it but the 70-200L F4 IS USM looks pretty reasonable :)
Click to expand...

It's a nice sized quality lens, f4 may limit you a tad in low light. 200mm will limit what you shoot at airshows as well really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom