From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Tamron wants to thank you for being a loyal buyer
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Tamron wants to thank you for being a loyal buyer
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 22:07:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <271220172207224998%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5181eae8-11d0-40a1-ac42-f32cd188483f@googlegroups.com> <fai7j6FneopU1@mid.individual.net> <271220171343371451%nospam@nospam.invalid> <p2112l0gag@news7.newsguy.com> <271220171623347269%nospam@nospam.invalid> <p21l0t0s0q@news7.newsguy.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1e14bd3a509c929ec02e1a4d111b6b3a";
logging-data="6419"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JGpqZSSUG2l3fclUrDqC2"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nO/mACtOvCcQ9aMAQRYmBgKKfZk=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<p21l0t0s0q@news7.newsguy.com>, PeterN
<"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote:

> >>>> Do they have four worth having?
> >>>
> >>> yes
> >>
> >> Which ones.
> > 
> > 90mm macro is a classic, with outstanding image quality. highly
> > recommended. the newer version is stabilized, while purists prefer the
> > original.
> > 180mm macro also a classic and also highly recommended.
> > 28-75mm is inexpensive and excellent for the price, especially for aps.
> > 200-500mm is also excellent.
> 
> Compared to what. Produce your own test images, not those of someone who 
> may very well be a shill.

i see you just want to argue.

> My Cord was a classic, just before I totaled it..

you don't have a very good track record.

> > they also have some duds. the 200-400mm is not very good.
> > 
> >> 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.
> > 
> > it's also less expensive than the nikon version.
> > 
> >> The cost of a Tamron is considerably less than a Tamron with the same
> >> focal length and max aperture.
> > 
> > so you say.
> No that was a typo. I meant a fixed focal length lens made by Tamron is 
> less expensive than a fixed focal length Canon or Nikon, if both have 
> the same aperture.
> 
> > i'm quite sure the prices are much closer than you think, most likely
> > the same.
> 
> Dream on.

*whoosh*

> >> A couple of the guys have APS C cameras,
> > 
> > only a couple? it must be a small camera club.
> > 
> >> And find them great for travel.
> > 
> > what about the ones who stay home?
> 
> You are being your usual argumentative asshole. The best job for you 
> would be counting crowds at Trump rallies.

there's one crowd per rally, possibly two if there are protestors. easy!

> >> 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.
> > 
> > autofocus speeds are sometimes slower, but not overly so.
> 
> Interesting comment, considering your proven experience.

which is extensive.

> > what matters is the image quality.
> 
> Nobody in this thread said otherwise.

you did.