In the Store

[KellyL]

After this weekend, the importance of backup equipment rang very LOUDLY in my ears. My 17-55 quit operating, not sure why. Called Canon and they think it may be the IS or possibly the USM.

So...I need to make sure I have backup equipment for everything. I have been wanting a backup for the Canon 70 - 200 f/2.8, and after reading the review in Pop Photog, decided to spring the $700.00 for the lens. My second shooter will use it...will replace her 70 - 300 f/3.5 5.6...a welcome change.

I drove around town trying to find anyone on the street. No luck. Ran into the convenient store and asked if I could just snap a few quickies.

I was impressed with the auto focus.

I processed these the way I would normally...shot at 800 ISO run Noiseware Professional and USM at 150, 1.2, threshold 10.

Here are the results.

[KellyL]

P.S. These were shot wide open at f/2.8, shutter speed 1/100, 1/250 respectively. Oh....Tamron 70 - 200 f/2.8.

[felix.reichardt]

so you got another 70-200?

[KellyL]

My first is the Canon f/2.8...I wasn't about to spend another 1700 for that lens so Sarah could also shoot with it at our weddings. Her talent has come far and she needs good equipment. When I read about the new Tamron, I decided to jump.

[KellyL]

Oh...and I also picked up a 24 - 70 in preparation for the NEW Canon 5D...whenever that might be. This way Sarah and I will be able to shoot with f/2.8 lenses. Right now she is at a disadvantage because she doesn't have as good of lenses as I do, and her talent is increasing and my reliance on her to shoot is also becoming greater.

[Rain Lily]

Kelly, these are beautiful! I'm so glad you posted these, it will help me make a decision about a lens! You rock, baby! (teehee!)
Sis

[LadyShutterbug]

Great info, thanks for sharing!

[Rain Lily]

Kelly what was the focal length on these photos?
Sis

[KellyL]

Sis,

Our lines went down with a ferocious storm that just passed through. I don't know if you tried to reach me or not. Hope I didn't cause any trouble by ringadinging. I wanted you to see these test shots. I will have to check the focal length tomorrow when I can get my computer up and running again. My daughter's laptop connected to the internet so I stole a moment to check in on this thread. I am worse than a mailman.

[Rain Lily]

LOL, no, you caused no trouble! I tried to call you back but got your machine, so I left you a message. I'll call you in the morning, or you call when you get service or a few free minutes, ok?

LOVE these photos. Fun like Bill's and so well done!
Sis

[KellyL]

Four ten good buddy. I'll be home all morning salvaging wedding photos.

[Rain Lily]

Hey, Kelly, check this out - same lens in sports forum.
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is a contender!

[Athena]

congratulations on your new lens(es)!

Is Sarah a camel yet Kelly? It would be great to see her work here too.

[KellyL]

She does have an account, but being in her last few months of her teenage years, she, for some reason, doesn't find sitting at a computer for hours posting pictures high on her priority list. However, I am going to work on her!

[Brewyet]

Kelly nice shots. What a Ko-ink-e-dink, me and a friend of mine were just talking about this lens last night. He is thinking about buying this lens instead of plopping down 1700 on the Canon. I have the Canon, and I call it White Gold. But, is it almost 3 times better than the Tamron? Could you take a couple test shots with both lenses, and let us see if we can guess what lens you used on them?! Please! Thanks Kelly...Chris

[KellyL]

Chris, on my todo list today, I am going to compare the two lenses and see how they perform. I was very concerned about not having the IS, but the lens is noticeably lighter and the dealer, who shoots Nikon, told me that he prefers the lenses without IS. So...was it a sales ploy? I don't know. I think that if he was really trying to sell me something he would have trumped up the value of the IS. I nabbed it because of the affordability and Mark McCall shoots most of his professional work with Tamron lenses.

[Max@Home]

FWIW: four 70-200F2.8 lenses have recently been tested on DPReview, Canon IS, Nikon VR, the Sigma and the Tamron.

Optically the Tamron seems a good lens, but not build-to-last like the Canon, and no sealing, no FullTimeManualOverride, noisy and slow(er) AF...

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[Pony]

Kelly,I too,have just come from the popphoto website after having looked at the SQF on that lens.VERY impressive! And for the money this lens really makes sense.The sqf is comparable if not better than the 70-200 f4IS lens and better than the 2.8IS.They are going to sell alot of these.Be waiting to see what your tests show.
P.S.- tell us about the autofocus in low light when you get a chance

[Rain Lily]

I'm interested in this too - the lack of FTM doesn't concern me because I'm typically not doing something so fast paced that reaching up and clicking AF to MF is a problem - besides, at 46 years old, my eyes focus slower than the time it would take to push that button, LOL. But I'd like to know how big of a deal it is if a camera isn't "sealed" well? It's pretty dang dusty in the country and just about all my photos are taken outdoors.
Sis

[nldunne]

Have fun with the new TOY, Kelly. Well Done on the images!