Lens advice: Tamron 70-300 f/ 4-5.6 vs. Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED vs. Sigma 70-300mm. Supra II Macro

In article , D.R.
DR@NewZealand wrote:

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
news:200720042253412886%
SNIP
It's all made together to work together...Nikon.

Load o' Crap!

You will get better results using a Nikon lens with a Nikon camera than
you will using a 3rd party lens.

Preddy will be pleased as it seems Sigma kicks butt here.

The sting of low quality remains long after the sweetness of low price
is forgotten.

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , D.R.
DR@NewZealand wrote:

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
news:200720042253412886%
SNIP
It's all made together to work together...Nikon.

Load o' Crap!

You will get better results using a Nikon lens with a Nikon camera than
you will using a 3rd party lens.

Preddy will be pleased as it seems Sigma kicks butt here.

The sting of low quality remains long after the sweetness of low price
is forgotten.

I am sure that the sting of soft photos from buying a Nikon ED lens with such a
low quality glass will smite even more, seeing that they cost a premium and that
the Sigma equivalent is cheaper and better in this particular case.

Compare for example the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR DI for about US$585. Slightly
sharper than the Nikon 28-70 ED equivalent at US$2700. 4.14 vs 4.05 out of 5.
You can be a snob all you like and try to convince yourself that you are better
off having bought the Nikon ED at almost 5 times the price of the Tamron lens.
Whereas others not so snobby can enjoy the quality at about 1/5 of the price.

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm D.R. DR@newzealand wrote:

I am sure that the sting of soft photos from buying a Nikon ED lens with such a
low quality glass will smite even more, seeing that they cost a premium and that
the Sigma equivalent is cheaper and better in this particular case.

Compare for example the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR DI for about US$585. Slightly
sharper than the Nikon 28-70 ED equivalent at US$2700. 4.14 vs 4.05 out of 5.
You can be a snob all you like and try to convince yourself that you are better
off having bought the Nikon ED at almost 5 times the price of the Tamron lens.
Whereas others not so snobby can enjoy the quality at about 1/5 of the price.


OTOH you can be sure it doesn't start to stick at infinity focus after a week or
be very unsharp thoughout 1/2 of teh focus range or simply fall apart - stuff
i saw back when i still considered tamron an option.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm D.R. DR@newzealand wrote:

I am sure that the sting of soft photos from buying a Nikon ED lens with
such a
low quality glass will smite even more, seeing that they cost a premium and
that
the Sigma equivalent is cheaper and better in this particular case.

Compare for example the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR DI for about US$585. Slightly
sharper than the Nikon 28-70 ED equivalent at US$2700. 4.14 vs 4.05 out of
5.
You can be a snob all you like and try to convince yourself that you are
better
off having bought the Nikon ED at almost 5 times the price of the Tamron
lens.
Whereas others not so snobby can enjoy the quality at about 1/5 of the
price.


OTOH you can be sure it doesn't start to stick at infinity focus after a week
or
be very unsharp thoughout 1/2 of teh focus range or simply fall apart - stuff
i saw back when i still considered tamron an option.

That's what a warranty is for. Most decent shops will even exchange if your
sample is not as sharp as it should be. Just clarify this before purchase.

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm D.R. DR@newzealand wrote:

That's what a warranty is for. Most decent shops will even exchange if your
sample is not as sharp as it should be. Just clarify this before purchase.


Yeah, but you know, it grows very old very fast. I'd rather use lens where
such is not a *systematic* problem.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++