>From the dictionary: inferior: Low or lower in quality, value, or estimation
I stand by my statement. The 49mm version is INFERIOR to the 55mm version based on MY experience. I didnt state that the 49mm was a bad lens, just that it was inferior to the 55mm. even if it's just slightly inferior IMHO it's still inferior. If you all have a problem with that so be it, I dont feel it's necessary to provide third party "proof" with my all my judgements. My outstanding ebay feedback rating speaks for itself. JCO > -----Original Message----- > From: William Robb [mailto:w_robb@;accesscomm.ca] > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 1:13 PM > To: Pentax Discuss > Subject: Re: Tamron 90mm F2.5 SP Macro for auction > > > Hi Fred, I am going to disagree with you on this one, and here's > why. > The auction was brought to the attention of the discussion group > by the vendor. Consequently, he made the auction a topic of > conversation on the discussion group. > So, we then have to look at the auction, where he definitely > said "the inferior early version". > The problem arises in that he did not provide any documentation > to prove his claim that what he is selling is superior, or even > that there is any truth to the claim, and consequently, the > claim itself is specious at best, and a dishonest shot at other > peoples auctions to his own auction's advantage at worst. > If he had provided a link to a reputable lens testing site that > had comparative data on the two lenses, that backed his claim, > that would make a difference. > Had the auction indicated that he was expressing an opinion, > rather than making it sound like he was expressing a fact (which > he wasn't making any effort to back up), then it would have been > different. > > What the auction implied, though, was that the lens he is > selling is a T-Bone steak, and the other lens is a Big Mac. > > As a retailer myself, I couldn't condone that sort of > advertising in my own business, and it shouldn't be condoned in > any other business either, whether the seller is a long time > respected contributor or a first time poster. > > William Robb > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 9:02 AM > Subject: Re: Tamron 90mm F2.5 SP Macro for auction > > > > > "Slightly better" 55mm version sounds better than "the > inferior > > > early version" > > > > Perhaps... > > > > > As for you, J.C., it seems to me that you are using this > forum as > > > a business tool. Not very ethical, in my point of view. > > > > Now wait a minute !!! - > > > > 1. JCO is a regular and valued contributor to the PDML. > > > > 2. It is generally understood here that PDML contributors may > > legitimately post information on items that they're selling. > JCO > > may do so, you may do so, and I may do so. > > > > 3. In this particular case, I believe that JCO provided just > the > > URL to his eBay auction for this lens, in a admirably low-key > > manner. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) > > > > 4. The statement that you seem to be criticizing was not even > made > > here on the PDML, but was made within the open marketplace of > eBay. > > (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) > > > > 5. ~You~ seem to be the one that is trying to make the PDML > some > > sort of a flame forum for your personal feelings. You were > the one > > to use the term "cheap tricks" for a person's actions (which I > think > > is a lot more emotionally charged than merely applying the > label of > > "inferior" to an inanimate lens). > > > > I guess you are entitled to your opinion here like everyone > else. > > However, I think that your attack on JCO's character is far > less > > appropriate here on the PDML than is his posting of a URL. > > > > Fred > > > > > > >
