Tamron wants to thank you for being a loyal buyer

On 12/27/2017 11:49 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:29:25 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

I will not play BJ where they have changed the rule so that a
dealer must draw on a soft 17. In a six deck game, WITH DOUBLE
AFTER SPLITTING ALLOWED, It increases the house edge from about
.41% to .63%. If you doubt me, do the math for yourself.

If the house has any edge, why bother playing at all? And no one
actually does the math on this. These days they look it up, but it
was established with simulations, not a calculator.

Anyway, that change to hit soft 17 will cost only another $22 after
$10,000 of betting. Who cares? At a full table, you'd play 3-4 hours
at $100 per hand and lose $63 instead of $41. It's not even worth
thinking about. You're just gambling either way, and if you're
betting that much, $22 means nothing.


The casino owners love that type of thinking.
In my playing days, we considered gambling money as entertainment. We
would set aside a certain amount of money. When that money was gone we
would not enter a enter a casino until the following year. My wife loved
the slot machines, I never enjoyed playing them.
To answer your comment, more completely, I don't care if your was of
thinking is right. I play for enjoyment. The rule change bothers me and
detracts from my enjoyment. If it doesn't bother you, great. play all
your heart desires. I have come to a high preference for poker. When
poker players are much better than me, I usually have the option of
switching tables. I also have the option of walking away, and some
casinos even let me use my camera.

--
PeterN

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 16:23:34 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
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.

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.

i'm quite sure the prices are much closer than you think, most likely
the same.

Not in this part of the world. The Tamron is usually significantly
cheaper with quality being nearly up to that of the Nikon.

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?

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.

what matters is the image quality.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:48:44 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:48:16 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:29:25 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 12/27/2017 10:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 27, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 12/27/2017 4:23 PM, nospam wrote:
In , PeterN
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.

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

...and for that automotive crime you should have been punished severely!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9vt5rp5x5ez9l84/DNC3479Aw.jpg


No Cord owners in this Hoosier family, but my father had a 1935
Boattail Auburn. Auburns were made in Auburn, Indiana. Errett Cord
owned the company in the 1930s. Cords were made in Connersville,
Indiana. Cord also owned Checker Motors (taxicabs) and Duesenberg
Motors Company (all by acquisition from former owners).

https://cdn2.mecum.com/auctions/ca08...?1471482655000
https://cdn1.mecum.com/auctions/ca08...?1471482655000
(webgrab images, not my father's Auburn)

There was a photograph of my father and his girlfriend (who was his
wife a year later, and my mother two years later) standing beside that
car, but it was in an album that was ruined by rain. They were moving
in the 60s when it was raining, and the box containing the album was
uncovered. I do remember the photo, though,

Was that the model which came with a little metal lable on the dash
which certified that it had been somewhere timed at some speed
slightly above 100mph?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


The cost of a Tamron is considerably less than a Tamron with the same
focal length and max aperture.

so you say.

i'm quite sure the prices are much closer than you think, most likely
the same.

Not in this part of the world. The Tamron is usually significantly
cheaper with quality being nearly up to that of the Nikon.

whoooooooooosh