"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:31:31 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:31:21 -0800, nospam
wrote in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:

Rebadged Tamron lens that falls short significantly in terms of
speed, telephoto reach, and quality, plus in-camera stabilization
is less effective than in-lens for long telephoto. I personally
wouldn't spend the money for a good body and put a Tamron lens on
it, but of course YMMV.

My Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro is the highest quality lens I own, and
I own a number of Canon L lenses. ...

I seriously doubt it can match the original Canon FD 100 mm f/4
Macro.

the fact that no current camera can use that lens makes it
irrelevant.

Hardly, given that many such cameras are in use, including my own
T-90.

plus, the tamron 90 is an excellent lens and differences, if any,
would require pixel peeping, ...

As I wrote, I seriously doubt it.

I have the Tamron 90mm macro also (Nikon mount, new version with built-in
AF
motor) and I believe it's the sharpest lens I own. And that's including a
couple of fixed focal length Nikkors (50/1.8 and 85/1.8) that are really,
really, really sharp.

Tamron makes some great lenses at a reasonable price. I have their
17-50/2.8
also, and I love it. In the case of both of these Tamrons, independent
lens
tests (Pop Photo, etc.) have shown them to be equal or superior to the
roughly corresponding Nikkors (105 micro and 17-55 DX) that are more than
twice the Tamrons' prices.

There's much more to a lens that just optical sharpness, as noted in my
original post above.

Sure. But the Tamron 90 appears to be a winner on just about all counts.