Originally posted by genesmasher I fully admit that there maybe Tamron copies around that produce stellar photos - clearly you and audiobomber had better copies. However, this doesn't change my opinion of it, invalidates my experience with it, or somehow enables you to claim that my feedback is less helpful than yours
You admitted only when I pointed it out to you, Genesmasher.
Your post 34 said: "I don't understand people's fascination with the Tamron."
As I replied, you actually didn't understand sample variation. You should read Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals on the issue.
It is of little interest that a bad example can be found.
By your methodology, you would never buy any lens if anybody could point to a defective one.
You were on sounder ground when you simply linked pics taken by your 55-300, pointing out what a within-spec copy can produce.
If I had a lousy copy of the 55-300, it would be *ridiculous* of me to criticize it the way you did the 70-200.
BTW, you say "Tamron is not exactly known for consistent quality", but Cicala has written extensively of variation in all brands (including glass like the Canon 85mm), and Tamron both have a
six year warranty to back their products and have been chosen to build the Pentax 24-70 FF lens, and probably a 15-30.
Ricoh clearly has more confidence than you.
Originally posted by genesmasher Just for the sake of clarity - he may in fact be purchasing "my lens", since it is no longer mine, and he didn't state that he wanted to buy new.
Well, something genuinely useful you could have done for the OP instead of whining is to have stated its serial number. (Rolls eyes)