ed rader wrote in post #16450395
I paid full pop for my 24-70L II and I've used it for more than a year. I did it without flinching because I could afford it and it's the lens I've waited for for years.
I climbed the bay bridge with it five different times.
been to Yellowstone twice, eastern sierras twice, Hollywood, west marin, Monterey, big sur etc etc. and going to the big island of Hawaii next month and it'll be the lens I use on the doors off helicopter tour.
count your pennies and get your best bang for the buck. I bought a lens to last at least 10 years. eventually you'll take a hit on the tammy and buy the lens you really wanted. I've done that too. good luck to you
There you go Ed, this is the key sentence above.
Just because you can afford it, it doesn't mean that everybody must do the same. Why are you trying to prescribe what others should do with their money? Not everybody is made of money. If we all were, we would all drive Ferraris, live in $50million mansions, and there would be only one brand of everything because it's the "best or nothing". Well, it isn't like that. People have the right to make a decision based on their needs and budget. That's why we have Canon, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina etc.
I'm glad you got to do all those things with your lens, sounds like fun, I love to travel too, but how is this relevant to this conversation? Now, should I list where I've been with my lens? Is that going to be a relevant information to others here who are trying to decide which one to buy? Is someone definitely going to pick the Canon just because you've taken yours to all those exotic places? Sounds like a commercial on TV At least I posted some photos from my Tamron, that's a bigger help.
Funny how my most traveled lens is (was) my old Tamron 18-270 VC that's been around the US and Europe about 6 times, still it won't make it any more or less awesome
So in conclusion, yes, I get you. You have money you bought the best, but not necessarily the best bang for the buck in the 24-70. And bashing other competent lenses just because you can afford the Canon won't change that.
But again, I don't know why I'm doing this, it's well known here that you despise anything other than Canon.
Here's DPreview's conclusion by the way:
"Overall the Tamron comes so close to the much more expensive non-stabilized Canon and Nikon lenses, both optically and operationally, that it's difficult to see why most enthusiast photographers might choose to buy them instead. That's not to say that there aren't any differences - the Tamron's not quite so quick at focusing, and chances are it's not as well weathersealed - but quite simply it offers much better value for your money."