On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 09:51:45 +1300 David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
Given that there are the same number of groups in the same number of
elements and the optical formula looks the same according to the diagrams,
and the lenses have the same physical dimensions and the same look and
feel, and the same zoom and focus mechanisms, I think it is safe to say
they are the same.
>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.
Well, I'm not sure what reviews you read, but almost all lenses get good
reviews nowadays. I believe that a Sigma won European lens of the year
this year, and I think the very well reviewed Tamron 90/2.8 macro won the
year before. Both were/are significantly cheaper than their OEM
counterparts.
>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.
While that may have been Sam's point, it would have had absolutely no
bearing on the question he was trying to answer.
