Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Sun Oct 26, 2014 4:55 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:37 am 
Hi,

Finally the Tamron 24-70(1100$) is in stock here where I live. I was looking forward to this lens, because it is more than half price of the Canon 24-70 II(2600$) and even 500$ more expensive than the Canon 24-70 I, and also includes VC which is not a must for me but it can come in handy.
One thing that concerns me is that if I buy the Tamron and try to sell it anytime after, it would not keep it's price as the Canon lenses will.
Anyone of you that has sold a third-party lens, could you tell me the percentage of the value loss in 1 and 2 years, or any experience you could share with me.
Is it smart to invest in the Tamron or stick with Canon m. I becase m. II is out of my reach at the moment, but even if i save enough I would feel bad for spending all my money on just 1 lens :)
Thank you.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:06 am 
Although I can not give the exact answer you are looking for, since I own neither of the two lenses, but I can give my 2 cents. It seems to me that you buy a lens because you want it for better picture quality, not for reselling it with a profit. Offcourse, resale value is something to keep in mind when buying equipment, though it is usually not the main reason. As you mentioned yourself, you would probably feel bad about buying a Canon lens because you spend so much money on a single item. It all depends on what you expect from your lens and how much you are willing to pay for it.

Consider the following example (the numbers are random, as I have no idea how much 2nd hand lenses go for):
You buy the 24-70 II for 2600 dollar, and you use it for a year. Say you get 80% back for a Canon lens. First off all, you will feel bad for spending 2600 dollar, money that you could spend on something else. And every time you see something you would want to buy, you will be reminded that you spend it on something you didn't really want. This raises the expectation you have for the lens. I mean, if it cost you so much more than the Tamron, it must deliver much more to justify the price difference. Chances are that you will be disappointed much easier because expectations are higher. The higher the expectations, the more chance you will be disappointed. Say you would sell that lens, and you get 80% back, 2080 dollar. You have 'lost' 520 dollar.

Then consider you buy the Tamron and you get 60% of the value back after a year. There must be a reason you consider to buy the Tamron. You recognise that the quality might be lower, but consider the quality loss to be low enough to justify for yourself that you should choose the Tamron. Your expectations will be lower, which reduces the chance you will be disappointed. As long as the lens delivers what you want, which is good sharp pictures. Say you sell the Tamron after a year and get 60% back, 660 dollar. You have 'lost' 440 dollar.

What i'm trying to say, is that you should decide for yourself what you goal is when choosing between these two lenses. I presume you want good quality pictures. Then consider if the quality loss (if there is any, I do not know these two lenses) is worth it to you. Out of your post I would judge that you consider the Tamron good enough for your goal and that this lens is within your financial possibilities. Resell value is something to consider, but achieving the goal you set up front is more important. Furthermore, if you see the above example, you can consider that a lower resale percentage does not mean you 'lose' more money. You will 'lose' more if you spend less money on the Tamron, and you are not happy with the results.

Decide to yourself what you value more, quality results or money and decide which lens gives you the 'value for money' you are aiming for. In order to do that, you might want to consider to rend both lenses to find out the quality results. Define for yourself the meaning of the word 'losing'.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:42 am 
Thank you for replying marco_cronenberg.
Since I don't own any L lenses, I don't know how much I would miss them.
I'm in the kind of dilemma when you are choosing a dSLR, there is one that shoots 4 frames/s and the other 8 fps.
How do you decide which one to buy if you don't know will you be needing those 8 fps...
Yes, it is useful but how often would you come in a situation where you need it and if you do, you don't have it...
On the other hand the 4 fps has better...let's say better body build, but you don't know how important body build is either...
I'm leaning towards the Tamron for now, and less to the Canon m1 because i read the Tamron is a bit better(sharper and has VC) .
I've actually tested both the Tamron and Canon m 2, when i compared both of the images, the Canon was clearly twice as good in IQ.
Then again when I viewed them separately, not comparing them I was happy with the Tamron.
So now I can simplify my question to this:
Is the Tamron worth 1100$? What is your opinion. If not, I could go with the 28-75 2.8 Tamron and save an additional 600$.
Has anyone of you used the 24-70 or 28-75 Tamron? I would be using them on a full frame camera.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:27 am
Posts: 528
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
If you don't know whether or not you need 8fps then I'd be pretty sure that you don't.

Also, the absolute amount of depreciation you'd lose on the Tamron lens with a RRP at less than half its Canon equivalent will undoubtedly be far less - even if in percentage terms it may be greater. Additionally, if you're worried about the depreciation on a $1100 lens then I'd hazard a guess you probably can't afford the $2600 lens.

All things considered, the Tamron lens would probably suit 95% of photographers better, but 95% of them don't know it.

_________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/53061745@N02/

Panasonic G3: 9-18mm, 14mm, 20mm, 45mm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:01 am
Posts: 1167
Location: bit east of Melbourne
the new canon lens seems ridiculously expensive, I would expect that it would suffer more depreciation due to its current high price than the tamron will. I would expect that price to come down in 12 month or so.
I would go for the tamron.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 6D,7D, Canon 40 2.8 STM, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, Canon 17-40 L, Canon 15-85, Canon 85 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L Macro, Canon 70-300L +Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:22 pm
Posts: 1315
Location: Speyer (Germany)
I guess the Tamron lens will fall in price a bit, too. Maybe not as much as the Canon version. Of course that will affect the used prices as well but still I don't think I'd exchange any of those great lenses.
In a German forum someone tested the Canon 24-70mm I vs. the Tamron 24-70mm on a 5D2 and the result was:
Although the focal length is said to be the same, the Tamron is a little bit wider. If it was a Canon lens it had be called 22-64 or something like that :D The corners are sharper than those of the Canon lens; the center is very similar. The vignetting is a little bit stronger with this Tamron lens. The bokeh is very similar but the Tamron lens tends to have some slight "onion rings" in its "bokeh balls". Just slightly, nothing to worry about. The build quality of the Canon lens seems to be better; still the Tamron lens is definitely OK and it's lighter. The Tamron lens has the VC while Canon's lens doesn't. Focusing speed and accuracy were very similar.
The tester gave back the Tamron lens because he said he didn't need the VC.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III + Canon EOS 33v
Canon EF 28-80mm 3.5-5.6 USM + EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 50mm 1.8 II + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 3:08 pm 
Hi Jiko, I've heard that lenses are not exactly the focal length they are advertised to be...Anyway that's good for the Tamron since it goes a bit wider. What do you say guys, should i buy it? I can get it for 1050 AU $. ...Or i can buy two USM primes in that focal range, which won't be as good. The m1 Canon is 1600$ or i can go for the tamron 28-75.... I really don't know what to do.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:22 pm
Posts: 1315
Location: Speyer (Germany)
Personally... if my plan wasn't the 24-105mm lens (mainly because of the longer zoom range) I'd go for the Tamron 24-70mm.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III + Canon EOS 33v
Canon EF 28-80mm 3.5-5.6 USM + EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 50mm 1.8 II + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group