[gatorguy]

I own the Pentax,I own the G1 Tamron EF mount.I can tell the difference!

On what camera?

[surfar]

On what camera?

The ones i own.

[gatorguy]

The ones i own.

LOL...
If you aren't willing to argue honestly why bother at all?

[northcoastgreg]

I guarantee that you could not identify what 70-200 is used outside of looking at EXIF. They're all that good.

That's not always been my experience. I usually can tell which images of mine are shot with the Tamron and which are shot with my Pentax glass. The Tamron just doesn't render colors, especially greens and blues, as my Pentax glass, and that's often a clear giveaway (and sometimes I convert my Tamron images to black-and-white for this reason). I actually would have preferred the DA* 60-250, but at the time, the Pentax zoom was going for $1,300 and I could get the Tamron for $640. Since I was going to use the lens primarily for zoo photography, I went with the cheaper option. But that doesn't mean I'm under any illusion that images from the Tamron would be indistinguishable from images taken with Pentax star glass. When the local zoo decided to use my images for bus adds, large posters, and even a digital billboard, they overwhelming preferred images taken with the DA* 300 over the Tamron. These decisions had nothing to do with sharpness, as the Tamron is pretty much as sharp as the DA* 300. It has to do with the colors, which are just flat out better with the Pentax star lens.

[gatorguy]

That's not always been my experience. I usually can tell which images of mine are shot with the Tamron and which are shot with my Pentax glass. The Tamron just doesn't render colors, especially greens and blues, as my Pentax glass, and that's often a clear giveaway (and sometimes I convert my Tamron images to black-and-white for this reason). I actually would have preferred the DA* 60-250, but at the time, the Pentax zoom was going for $1,300 and I could get the Tamron for $640. Since I was going to use the lens primarily for zoo photography, I went with the cheaper option. But that doesn't mean I'm under any illusion that images from the Tamron would be indistinguishable from images taken with Pentax star glass. When the local zoo decided to use my images for bus adds, large posters, and even a digital billboard, they overwhelming preferred images taken with the DA* 300 over the Tamron. These decisions had nothing to do with sharpness, as the Tamron is pretty much as sharp as the DA* 300. It has to do with the colors, which are just flat out better with the Pentax star lens.

Thanks, that's a far more honest reply than Surfars. The *200 and *300 are tough to beat. I'd never expect a 70-200 zoom to outclass either of those primes no matter whose brand it is.

I noticed I've been using the Sigma more than the Tamron in the past several days so apparently I've also noticed a slight difference in rendering. Not enough to scream at me, but perhaps there nonetheless. That doesn't mean that if you showed me two good photos, one from your Tamron and one from the Pentax 70-200, that I could positively identify which is which.

I do know I've been pleased enough with my total outlay of roughly $1050 for the Tamron 70-200, Sigma 70-200 and the Sigma 2x converter and the resultant images that the Pentax 70-200 would not have been a wiser purchase. I still saved enough to add a Pentax FA 85 for no more money. Well maybe $100 more, but I think I'll be keeping the Sigma and selling the Tamron so I'll come out way ahead. That'll pay for my two very useful RGB LED lights for the studio and still leave money in my pocket.

And that's the conclusion Tony came to as well.

[surfar]

And that's the conclusion Tony came to as well.

Once again, its a 6 year old conclusion based on the level of gear and prices that was available then.His conclusion has no relevance today.

[gatorguy]

Once again, its a 6 year old conclusion based on the level of gear and prices that was available then.His conclusion has no relevance today.

Saving money buying an oh-so-good lens instead of one 5-10% "better" for a grand more (or in some cases WAY more) in order to invest the savings on gear that will make far more of a difference to your own photograpy will always have relevance. That was the point, and I strongly suspect you know that. You just don't want to admit you might have been wrong? Sometimes adults are wrong. Kids (!) never are, my 24 year old being a prime example.

---

Last edited by gatorguy; 06-10-2020 at 03:19 PM.

[surfar]

Saving money to spend on gear that will make more of a difference will always have relevance.

Well, yes,however his conclusion isnt relevant today.Search for an updated comparison,his conclusions will be different.