Subject: Re: Tamron wants to thank you for being a loyal buyer
Full headers:
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete">
Subject: Re: Tamron wants to thank you for being a loyal buyer
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 15:54:14 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
<> <271220171343371451%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <271220171343371451%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Body-CRC: 104895520
X-Received-Bytes: 2374
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/27/2017 1:43 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<>, android
><here@there.was> wrote:
>> Do they have four worth having?
> yes

Which ones. Some of the guys in my CC have them, and are satisfied. One 
was really thrilled with his Tamron 70-200, until I lent him my Nikon. 
The cost of a Tamron is considerably less than a Tamron with the same 
focal length and max aperture. A couple of the guys have APS C cameras, 
And find them great for travel.
I personally the 150-600, and for focus tracking it felt slower than my 
80-400. At Photo-Expo last year, I had a discussion with the Tamron 
sales reps, who finally agreed that it was indeed slow on my D800. But 
they insisted it worked well with the D800 earlier in the day. Yet One 
of my friends, who shoots with a Canon, never had an issue with it.
In summary:
it's an OK line of lenses for those who do not want to spend a lot of 
money, and yet still enjoy the hobby. I personally might consider only 
one of the lenses, if I didn't have an equivalent Nikkor lens. The 
17=50, and possibly the 150-600.
Others may very well feel differently.
I will not respond to anyone who makes a tzimmus over which Tamron lens 
is better.
(For those who do not know the expression see: