Winsor Crosby wrote:
> You may be right, but in the few examples where focal and aperture
> range were the same, I found the newer lenses also had more elements
> and focus motors added for the first time as well as the VR. So it is
> hard to tell what is contributing size and weight exactly. So
> choosing the lens without the VR because of weight may be rejecting a
> much improved lens.
>
I was making a different comparison. I am very happy with my Tamron
28-300 Di. It produces excellent images, but it would be nice to have
IS. The Canon 28-300 IS weighs FOUR times as much and is considerably
larger (and costs a LOT). A tiny bit faster at the long end and slower
as the wide end. You can also see why I am considering the 100-400,
lighter and cheaper than the 28-300.
Lens Tamron XR Di Canon L Canon L
Speed f3.5-6.3 f3.5-5.6 4.5-5.6
Focal Len. 28-300 28-300 100-400
Length Min 3.3 7.2 7.4
Max 6.5 7.2 7.4
Diameter 2.9 3.6 3.6
Weight 420 1,670 1,361
Lbs 0 3 3
& Ozs 15 11 0
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|