[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 07:30:32 +1300 Sam Urdank wrote:
>>I said it before, and now I will say it again. Put Nikon lens on Nikon
>>cameras.
>Oh! Wait a second! The Nikon is actually a rebadged Tamron.
Has this ever been confirmed by a reliable source? All I have ever heard
so far has been hearsay on this subject.
>I guess all those
>who bought the 75-300 Nikkor instead of a Tamron 70-300 paid twice as much for a
>worse lens! But back then we thought the Tamron sucked, as it was not a Nikon
>lens. But when Nikon releases their rebadged version of this lens we all of a
>sudden think its great. It's enough to make you sick.
I have never heard anyone say that all Nikkors are great. What Sam said is
oversimplifying matters but it can be read to mean something with which I agree.
I have used other brands of cameras and lenses, including third party lenses.
Maybe not all third party lenses are crappy but all the ones I have used are.
Even the supposedly crappy Nikkors I have used (metal mount 35-80 AFD, 70-210 AFD)
are much better than any of the third party lenses I have used (five or six
by different manufacturers). I have had such bad experiences with third party
lenses and such good experiences with Nikkors that I would have to be paid just to
try a third party lens now. All the test reports I have seen of third party lenses
have given poor reviews except for the lenses which cost almost as much as OEM lenses.
Another issue is that some people spend a lot of money on a good camera body
then use it with a poor lens. What is the point of doing that? That is like
buying a Ferrari and putting bicycle tires on it. That may have
been the point Sam was trying to make. In my many years of communicating on the
Internet, I have found is very often difficult to understand exactly what a
person means. Intonation of speech and body language which helps to convey the
meaning of our speech often does not communicate one's meaning accurately.
David Johnson
