Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post
Duck Duck Dive Dive. You have refined it to an art. You sail right on by my point.

My point is: you have spent money like a madman. Three, count 'em, three Tamron super zooms all covering basically the same focal length, you could have purchased one good lens for all of that money. 70-200, 70-210, 70-300, 80-400, holy cow over over lap lap, again you could easily eliminate 3 of these 4 lenses. You have spent the money, it's just in your blind Tamron Kool-aid drinking, you purchase over and over trying to find something decent.

Tamron 17-50, 28-75, 70-200, 200-500, that's all you need, you're covered. Yet you've purchased lenses all around these and in between these, and you're proud of it. I have no right whatsoever to tell you how to spend your money, but when you insinuate that purchasing the good glass is too expensive, you have to take a look at your gear list and wonder why all those overlapping mediocre lenses isn't an example of expensive.

I have 4 pro level lenses that offer my body maximum performance that cover the same range you have. I tried a couple of Tammys and they immediately went on eBay, they just didn't measure up, not even close. That was all the proof I needed to never purchase another Tamron lens. I understand that Tamron does make some optical gems, they aren't cheap though(less than some OEM counterparts)and the AF makes them less of a bargain.
Don is quite the collector.....

But as you pointed out that lineup would suffice. Although the 28-75mm really isn't needed as it's more or less covered well. I would supplement that with a 10-20 (or some other UWA zoom) (which Don does have).