Tom Reichner wrote in post #18944208.
I have read many reviews of the Tamron, and people who have used both the Tamron and Canon supertelephotos have said that while they like the Tamron, and consider it a great value, its autofocus is not as fast to acquire and lock onto a subject as the Canon lenses are.
So, since the discussion here was specific to autofocusing on birds in flight, I think that when Mark said something about "outgrowing the Tamron"
, he probably meant that the person he was responding to would eventually find that for very demanding BIF photography, Canon lenses would probably perform better than the Tamron in the most challenging situations.
Once someone gets really good at something, and their skills surpass the ability of the gear they are using, then they tend to upgrade to better gear, so that the gear is not the limiting factor. .
That could be described as "outgrowing the gear". .
I don't think that is insulting - it is just coming to a realization that a $900 lens is not going to perform as well in every facet as a $2,000 or $5,000 or $12,000 lens performs.
For several years, I used a Canon 50D as my main camera body. .
Many people who knew me often said that I would do so much better when I upgraded to a more capable camera body. .
I had this said to me dozens and dozens of times over the years, and never took it as an insult to either my 50D nor to myself. .
It wasn't derogatory. .
It was just people being realistic, and stating a fact. .
I finally did upgrade, to a 1D Mark 4, and the photos I produced with the Mark 4 were much better than those I had been producing with the 50D. .
Same photographer. .
Same skills. .
Much better photos, and more of them. .
Agreed - Having owned V1 of the Tamron, and having it sent back for a firmware update, them moving to the 100-400II, the keeper rate as well as pure sharpness was just better. So while the Tamron isn't "bad" it's a nice lens, but I personally ran into its limitations for a number of scenarios for BIF. Can it nail a few tough shots here n there? yes! Did it do so consistently? No. I realized with it that if you have say a harrier hawk flying slightly towards the camera, but mostly laterally, without any distractions around it, and did this same shot on multiple occasions, it just would not nail most of them. I had it for about 7-8 months and then hopped on the 100-400 II. Everything improved. So the intent wasn't' to hurt anyone's feelings, it's like anything, it's a stepping stone, just like the 100-400II is a stepping stone to getting to say a 400 DOII / 500 F4 / 600 F4. We each have our own individual expectations. Most people racing cars start in carts, or a miata, before they get to the Porsche GT2. That was the spirit of what I was getting at.