Not as a dramatic example as Moose provided but an apples to apples
comparison is the 70-200/2.8 C*non lens
NonIS: 2.8 lbs 7.6" x 2.3" $1148
IS 3.5 lbs 7.7" x 3.4" $1700
Tamron SP 80-200/2.8 1359g -> 3.0 lbs. (for OM from Piers' provided
translation)
-jeff
On 5/7/07, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> 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
==============================================
|