Porsche or Gremlin which is better

[Groundworxs]

Hello all happy week end. There have been a couple of threads recently that ask people to compare two products. This all sounds fine to me except the products are not equal. Tamron 28-75di should not be compared to the canon 17-40. These lenses are for different applications. Ultra wide angle lenses never fair as well as their wide angle counter parts Why not compare the canon 24-70 or 28-70 against the tamron 28-75 or the tamron 17- with the canon 17. This would be more accurate. Then all that is left for you to decide is price and durability for your own needs. :)
Cheers
Tom

[ron chappel]

I actually like it that people sometimes compare odd lenses-but ONLY if the test is done at equal magnification.
That way it's usefull for comparing ultimate image quality so as to place each lens in order of overall sharpness in the grand sceme of things :)

[Scottes]

Why do they have to be equal to be compared?

Personally I like the large windshield of the Gremlin since it gives good visibility, but is the speed of the Porsche *so* much better that it's worth the extra cost?

If you don't like these threads then don't read them and don't answer them.
Don't whine about it.

[ron chappel]

Definitely the gremlin 8)
You can put your L lenses in it and no one will suspect ,lol :lol:

[thomascanty]

Definitely the gremlin 8)
You can put your L lenses in it and no one will suspect ,lol :lol:

And you can afford more of those L lenses, too! :lol:

[Andy_T]

Definitely the gremlin 8)

Interesting thread ... didn't know the Gremlin so far, being an European.
The Pacer had been the weirdest car to cross the Atlantic, then :lol:

But it seems to be an interesting little car ... within limits :wink:

Something my research turned up...

http://www.wkdwich.com/images/cartoon.jpg

Best regards,
Andy

[arumdevil]

bloody hell. This guy should run for president :D

[IanD]

I admit to having owned and driven a Gremlin a long time ago. Not your every day Gremlin but a much feared Gremlin X. '73 wth a heavily modified 304 that was no where close to being a street legal motor. We had close to 300 hp coming out of that little V-8. Hurst Mystery "8" ball shifter, linelock for the mandatory red light burnouts. Even had a set of traction bars on cause she would reach for the sky if you could hook it up just right. Spent more money on rear tires than gas.
Now the Pacer was just plain bone ugly. :lol: :lol:

[Belmondo]

I rented a Pacer one time. It looked like a potato with wheels, but wsn't a bad car to drive. Definitely NOT a chick magnet, though.

I've owned 4 Porsches over the years, but never a Gremlin. Maybe that's what I've been doing wrong. :?

[Groundworxs]

If you don't like these threads then don't read them and don't answer them.
Don't whine about it.

This is too funny. I started my own thread I did not complain or whine in any other thread. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of only I have not done the deed.

The reason for comparing equal is because there are people looking in to this forum to gather information who know little about the subject. If your only concern is which lens is the sharpest you should be advsing people to get the canon 200 1.8L.

Peace out :wink:

[Belmondo]

I feel apples and oranges type comparisons can be valid under certain circumstances. When someone is trying to get performane approaching that of more expensive items but without spending the money, I think comparisons are probably the only reasonable way to approach the subject. The issue becomes, how close are they for the money, and how much do you give up with the lesser item? Is it an acceptable tradeoff?

[Groundworxs]

I feel apples and oranges type comparisons can be valid under certain circumstances.

I agree with you belmondo I am not comparing the Tamron to Canon I am strictly talking focal length. Ultra wides are not as sharp as wides. Does any one happen to have or tried the Tamron 17mm how does it compare in image quality to the canon 17 or 16 2.8.

thanks for the responses this is a great site.

[Quinn Porter]

Groundworx,

Thanks for the reminder. I think this apples to oranges thing needs to be mentioned every now and then because there are always newbies around that don't understand the optical considerations of various focal lengths.

It reminds me of so many of my favorite posts. They go something like this:

I just got my DSLR and I want to buy a new lens. I was going to get the 17-40L, but I read the 200mm 2.8 is sharper. Which should I buy???

LOL :lol:

[ron chappel]

That's when you recommend to them the EF200/1.8 !! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

"you can't get the 200/2.8! that's an average lens! The 200/1.8 is the best! you must get it!!!!!"

[Cadwell]

Well I've gotta say I'm dissapointed. I opened this thread hoping for something different and I find it's yet another Tamron 28-75mm one. :lol: I know I've been guilty of singing the praises of this little lens in the past but it seems the forum is getting swamped with posts about it now. :roll:

Anyway, I'll make one last point (in answer to the original question) because I am one of those who compared the Tamron 28-75mm to the Canon 17-40L. Why? Because I actually own both of these lenses and so I *can* do a comparison and also because their focal lengths overlap. I have to make a choice between the two lenses when shooting in that range. If I am shooting in the 28-40mm range which lens do I stick on the front of the camera to get the best results? For me, that's an important thing to know.

I've also compared it with my Canon EF 28-135mm but I suppose that's not a vaild comparison because the Canon is longer right? :roll: (that's never going to be a choice thing, though, because there's no way in hell I'm gonna use the 28-135mm for anything more than a door stop). :P

What I will not do is make pronouncements about a comparison I can't personally make (although lots on here seem to feel it's OK to do so). I don't own an EF 24-70L and am never likely to simply because I don't shoot in that range often enough to justify it's cost.