2014

When it comes to lenses, photographers tend to have endless discussions. How sharp is sharp? Is an L-Lens so much better, than a much less expensive one from brand S or T. Should I pay a truckload of money for such a little more? We all know from own experience, that 95% of the perfect performer cost 95% of the price. If you want the remainig 5% as well, you have to pay another 95%. I finally decided to retire my Tamron 70-300mm VC in favor of the CANON 70-200L f/4. Don't get me wrong, the Tamron is a good lens with an excellent stabilizer, but it is by far not a match for the CANON 70-200L. My first test was a ridge with a set of power pylons 13 km (8mi) from my house: Guess which is which:
Both shots with 200 mm focal length, Canon with f/4 and 1/1250 sec, Tamron with f/5 (max.) and 1/800. Both photos with tripod, LV, 10 sec timer and unprocessed out of the box. The stabilizer on the Tamron was set to off. This is of course a crop, the full frame looks like this:


Apart from the outstanding performance even at f/4 and the almost not exisent CA I am impressed by the excellent build quality. To make the long story short, I'm happy with my decision and the new lens :-)

Edit 10 years later:

Whenever I am going on a photo tour, the first question is: What is going into the bag? And in most cases, it is the Kit Zoom for the R7 (18-150), the 10-18 wide angle and 7,5 mm Fish Eye. The fine 70-200/4L is again staying home, sitting on the shelf with tears in the eyes. Don’t get me wrong, the 70-200 is a wonderful lens, it is just not compatible with my photographic portfolio, which is landscape and architecture. I simply don’t need it. This is an insight, which came rather late to me. 10 years ago, when I purchased the lens, I have been driven by technical parameters and not by my photographic portfolio. To be honest, it was just nice to have. Guess what: a few months ago, I sold it and have not missed it ever since.