In article <33C6FCF0.7E39@earthlink.net>, seangolden@earthlink.net says...
>Fred Whitlock wrote:

[most deleted...]
>> There is nothing wrong with disagreement. It makes the newsgroup more
>> interesting. I would prefer to read fewer personal slings, though, when
>> one disagrees. I'll get off my soapbox now. Sorry. It really didn't
>> pertain to 35mm photographic equipment.

>Well, I disagree, I think it does pertain, especially to attitudes
>people have about equipment, when skill is more important than any
>equipment.

Hmmm, not sure about jumping in here, but I agree with Fred - there is
nothing wrong with disagreement, but it can occur without acrimony...
(methinks Sean was perhaps excessively personal at times in his defense
of his Tamron 28-200mm lens choice...;-). And I think it is OK to point
out that one's standards for acceptable lens quality are higher (or
lower...) than most... Without an idea of where one is coming from, one's comment that "X" lens is wonderful or terrible has no meaning - but if
the user is happy (and makes only 3x5 prints's...), I personally am
less interested in the comment than I would be if the user were clearly
familiar with fine lenses, and with how to get the most out of them...
Of course a skilled photographer (or even one with absolutely no technical
skills at all...) CAN produce great images using the simplest/worst
equipment available - but the worse the gear, the more limiting it is
to a photographer with the skill and talent to explore its range of
capability. (I am NOT arguing for more auto features! Just for a
greater range of sharp lens apertures, greater viewfinder accuracy
and readability, more versatile [but useful...] flash features, etc.)
I am a nut about lens sharpness, and knowing that "X" lens is sharp
by f4 (but not wider), but a similar lens "Y" is quite good at f2 means
that I can make some kinds of photographs with lens "Y" that I cannot
make as well with lens "X". (If one does not care about this, one will
not find my arguements for having higher lens quality compelling. There
is nothing "elitist" about this - I am interested in owning and using good lenses, but I drive an old car, and all wines are equivalent to vinegar to me...;-) The lens which is the subject of this thread would not please me
at all (I sold my considerably superior Nikkor 24-120 for the same reason
I would not own the Tamron 28-200 - I can't make photographs with it that
are crisp to the corners at apertures of interest for me to use [I consider
this a serious limitation in a lens {though the Nikkor zoom was excellent
by f11, and quite good by f5.6...}]), though those who prefer to have a
wide range of FL's in one lens package (or who do not wish to change
lenses due to conditions of weather, opportunity, dirt, etc.) may choose
to trade-off image quality. But it may be useful to recognize that a
trade-off in image quality (often a rather considerable one...) does exist
when selecting a lens of this type in the name of "convenience" or any
other reason... I also don't think it is "elitist" (nor do I care...;-)
to point out that if one is choosing to live with a lens of considerably reduced capability for the sake of "convenience", that a good P&S may be
a better way to go (even more "convenient"...;-) than putting that lens on
an expensive SLR body (as opposed to a cheap one...;-). Good new and used primes are not necessarily expensive (though good zooms often are...), and
I think that much of the time I shall continue to undertake the dreaded and dreadful task of changing lenses on my light-tight film-holder when I wish
to change the angle of view...;-)
Hope This Helps
(David Ruether - http://www.fcinet.com/ruether )