It's interesting that when I shot a Pentax 6x7 and I had a 105 mm, it rendered images very similar, in terms of perspective not quality, to a 50 mm on a 35mm camera. Did that make a difference to me? You bet! My 200 mm was about equivalent to a 100mm, and my 50mm was a wide angle. My 135 macro was roughly equivalent to a 60mm lens on a 35mm camera. So, other than a semantic argument, I don't understand how that's different from a 300mm lens on my 1.6crop sensor looking a lot like an image shot at 480mm on a 35mm camera?

George, if you had an image taken with a little point and shoot at 4mm focal length, and someone asked you the focal length of the shot - what would you tell them?
Because unless you would just say "4mm." and not embellish or qualify your answer in any way at all - then your whole argument that you insist on having here is a crock of sh!t.

My first half decent digital camera was a Panasonic Lumix FZ20 (I think).
On the barrel it had written the focal range - and straight after that it had something like 28-432mm 35mm equiv

There was article discussing the furore of the British princess being photographed topless not so long ago. That article specifically did describe the lenses and extenders used and the focal length equivalence.

This is terminology that is in common use all the time.
And before I joined UHH I never saw anyone anywhere have the pedantic attitude to it that some here seem to have.

This equivalence helps people to purchase the lens that they need to cover a specific range or length. Its not hard. its not rocket science, its simplification.

This is the biggest lie and the largest bill of goods being sold to the photographic community....That a given lens, say a 200mm put on a DX body is somehow "equivalent" to a 350mm lens on a FX....The lens is STILL a 200mm, you have not changed the optical properties or magnification. The only thing that changes is that there is an automatic crop done in the camera to cut down the field of view because the sensor is smaller....The only thing this is "equivalent" to is the other bill of goods they used to sell called "Digital Zoom"....

Craig,
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. The Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 VC lens is a FULL FRAME lens.
Even IF it were a crop sensor lens, the crop factor gets applied at ANY lens mounted on those bodies. Focal length never changes regardless of lens designation, a 24-70 is ALWAYS a 24-70 no matter what body its put on. All that ever changes is the effective field of view that the sensor records. A 24-70mm lens (whether DX or FX) when on a D80 crop sensored body gives an effective equivalent field of view of a 36-105mm lens on a full frame body.

I GUARANTEE you WOULD NOT TALK LIKE THAT TO MY FACE!!!!!!

PLEASE refrain from putting forth false information on this forum, we have enough trolls doing that here already.

Shooter do you think you could've found a better more diplomatic way of addressing Craigs inaccurate post than using the hostile approach you used? He tried to help someone, he was wrong, but he was trying to help. There's no need to verbally attack someone for having an inaccurate post when trying to help. With your knowledge, you could've helped also if you had carefully worded your response to correct the inaccuracies rather than going on the attack for his efforts. If it was intentionally made to mislead the OP then that's a different story. It's because of people like you that people join and stay wallflowers instead of participating and becoming better at photography. No-one wants to be ridiculed ... I think you owe the man an apology.

Craig,
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. The Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 VC lens is a FULL FRAME lens.
Even IF it were a crop sensor lens, the crop factor gets applied at ANY lens mounted on those bodies. Focal length never changes regardless of lens designation, a 24-70 is ALWAYS a 24-70 no matter what body its put on. All that ever changes is the effective field of view that the sensor records. A 24-70mm lens (whether DX or FX) when on a D80 crop sensored body gives an effective equivalent field of view of a 36-105mm lens on a full frame body.
You are absolutely right on Count 1 I was thinking of the 17-50mm Lens thank you.
On count 2 you are confused on what I said
PLEASE refrain from putting forth false information on this forum, we have enough trolls doing that here already.

I am going to purchase the 24-70 mm AF f/2.8 lens to replace the kit lens for my nikon D80. The nikon version is rather pricey and doesn't have vibration reduction. Tamron makes a lens with the same specs, but it has vibration reduction. The tamron lens is also several hundred dollars cheaper at B&H. I even saw an add for the tamron lens offering it for less than $1000. I have seen technical comparisons of the two lenses, but I can't put my eyes on any of these reports at present. Would someone be so kind as to give me his or her personal comparison/recommendation? I am prone to buy the tamron, but it will the only non-nikon lens that I own. Thanks in advance.