Photoclubalpha

David, I just finished reading your thorough workout of the new Tamron, and it seems it is quite a good lens, even better than the KM18-200 surprisingly, (I had quite a good opinion of the latter).
I have done in the past a sort of comparo with it and the 100-300 APO of mine (which isn't a bad lens) and I was quite surprised with it's performance, there didn't seem to me to be that much difference, at least vewing on screen at normal display size, and in the A4 printouts, but I expect a "full on" test with expanded views etc. would show up differences.
The 18-200 lives on my KM5D more or less permanently in it's little Lowepro toploader along with it's 3600HS-D, as a grab and go kit, you now have me thinking about getting an 18-250 for the A100 kit, hmmmm
I would like to see a couple of shots without the UV filter just to see if there is any difference there as well.
Anyway the real purpose of this is to let you know that there is a small syntax typo in the last sentence of the review, (if your worried)... the use of is instead of it.
Regards
Greg

Thanks, I will probably amend the typo now, I have to reload some code every time I do a change on this system, but it's worth doing. I have done tests with and without a Rodenstock UV filter (the first shots were without, since then it hjas been fitted with one permanently). I don't see any difference at all, but the Rodenstock is a top quality filter about twice the price of a Hoya.

David

Greg Beetham wrote: Anyway the real purpose of this is to let you know that there is a small syntax typo in the last sentence of the review, (if your worried)... the use of is instead of it.
Regards
Greg

... and a little typo here also your = you're

rogprov wrote:

Greg Beetham wrote: Anyway the real purpose of this is to let you know that there is a small syntax typo in the last sentence of the review, (if your worried)... the use of is instead of it.
Regards
Greg

... and a little typo here also your = you're

Roger,
I'm quite happy to concede that my own spelling and typo content is pretty bad, and it doesn't really matter much one way or another in the big scheme of things, because nobody usually takes much notice of anything I have to say, but when it comes to a review by David K. I'm sure he would agree that I wasn't trying to "nitpick" as his words are read by many and are much more important. (I even tried to hide the post somewhere where only David might find it)
Anyway with with regard to (your vs you're), according to the MS Word dictionary the former denotes possession of something, so my meaning in this context was meant to convey, "David may or may not be in possession of worry".
Greg

I was only teasing Greg - sorry

rogprov wrote:I was only teasing Greg - sorry

You are (oops you're) forgiven, without reservation.
Greg

The Sony version is even better!