data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eb512/eb512d57ec93d4789e2b2bac1a5c5df4ef8ff480" alt="Laugh lol"
You got great pics of Lubyelubye lions sun tanning
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/106ac/106ac9790f14f4a0e4bf3d6443b4ecf451b72fef" alt="Cool O:V"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/52d2f/52d2f1c213da22ed49e8a95b0e313741cc7d7cf9" alt="Doff 0*\"
It was great chatting PJL and agreed, next time we need to throw a braai or something
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f7e2e/f7e2ef01481670cb7f9a89322d01682952545576" alt="Yay O\/"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f7e2e/f7e2ef01481670cb7f9a89322d01682952545576" alt="Yay O\/"
I'm with BT on this one... I'm not convinced there is a huge difference in image quality. Perhaps it becomes more visible if you pixel-peep on a 36MP shot, but bear in mind most people are probably not shooting with that kind of sensor. I know if I compare my shots with something like a 400mm prime Canon L lens then yes there is a slight difference with the Canon having a slightly sharper result, nicer bokeh and faster autofocus, but my Tamron is a zoom which is more convenient and provides an additional 200mm of focal length. If I was to get anything similar from the top Canon L glass range then it would be the new 100-400 lens, and whilst I do think my images might be slightly better with it - and therefore I naturally would love to buy the lens - it costs R10,000 more than the Tamron plus another R5000 for an extender to give it a similar range to what I have at the moment. Is it worth that much extra? Probably not, and for many of us the cost is a prohibitive factor - and that's what BT is saying... it's not that we don't want the lovely high-class pro lenses... it's just that they're flippin expensive and there generally needs to be a very obvious reason to shell out so much extra cash. I don't blame you for sticking to Nikon lenses - in years gone by they would be leaps and bounds ahead of generics, but the generics have certainly caught up quite significantly in recent years.Polentswa wrote:BluTuna don't be fooled there is a HUGE difference in image quality between the Generics and say Nikkor lenses which I have used for 45 years...Taking my current D800 as an example ...you have to have high end Nikkor glass to get the best out of that huge sensor. I wouldn't put anything else on my camera but the real thing and am busy saving like mad to be able to retire with good glass.. a present to myself to enjoy in the golden yearsBluTuna wrote:Glad to hear that you'll be returning PJLPJL wrote: Definitely not our last trip... already trying to figure out when we can get back there![]()
The tamron is certainly worth considering if you're either starting out or perhaps upgrading from kit lenses, but you're probably best saving your money for now if you have the sigma. Perhaps Canon will bring out something slightly longer than their old 100-400 to compete, in which case maybe save up for that![]()
![]()
From what I've seen in the comparisons between the generic and Nikon or Canon lenses there is not enough difference between them to warrant the massive extra cost unless you make your living from photography! By strange coincidence, Sigma have announced a new 150-600 at nearly twice the price of the Tamron!