Tamron wants to thank you for being a loyal buyer

On 2017-12-27 18:09:05 +0000, RichA said:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/980348...istered-lenses


Do they have four worth having?
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:

Do they have four worth having?

yes

On 12/27/2017 1:43 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , android
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:
http://www.jewishmag.com/181mag/yiddish_words/yiddish_words.htm




--
PeterN

On 2017-12-27 20:54:14 +0000, PeterN said:

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.

Oki...
--
teleportation kills

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.

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.

On 12/27/2017 4:23 PM, 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.

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..


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.

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.



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.


what matters is the image quality.


Nobody in this thread said otherwise.

--
PeterN

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.

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.

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

--

Regards,
Savageduck

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

I am, every time I look at one. That's what happens when you do
something smart with gambling money.
Actually the car was closer to this: If it was an 812 I would have been
even more ****ed at myself.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gr22c8htkyppsau/download.jpg?dl=0




On our last cruise I won the ships blackjack tournament. As proof that I
learned that lesson, I spent the money wisely: we had an air conditioned
lean to on the beach; and a butler serving us lobster dinners with all
the trimmings and drinks we wanted; invited some friends to join us,
while our fellow cruise passengers were eating hamburgers and hotdogs,
while fighting for a place to sit down and eat.

I wound up with no money in either case, but some great memories in the
second case.

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.



--
PeterN

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.