I have found in the past that often "fellows" like titon1, Jim Blob, and others of troll-like natures, often trace back to frustrated gamers who decide to branch out of their loser statuses and wreak havoc on otherwise civil forum sites.
(Based on having been involved in tracing and tracking trolls in the past)
Be that as it may, there are several toll-like creatures here on UHH. But like usually happens, they gravitate back to their game site portals, or on to other forums as their attention spans are as limited as their acuity.

Anyway, I have enjoyed seeing what the Tamron 150-600 mm can do in the hands of great photographers. And it gives me things to try and aspire to.

Thank You Regis, and other contributors, to these Tamron threads. :D

Because sharpness is determined by what an individual considers acceptable and how they justify the money they spent according to value. It's subjective and although I understand your reasoning, in this case it's like judging beauty as faulty as that might seem. Eye of the beholder.

This quote seems to work well here.

"Men who have excessive faith in their theories and ideas are not only ill
prepared in making discoveries; they also make poor observations."
---Claude Bernard---

It's not fair to compare a $10,000 with a $1,000 lens or to think that there aren't differences with build quality, color rendition or sharpness. A prime long lens will most certainly out resolve a zoom in the high focal range.

For the money it's great but it's not in the same class. To play the devils advocate the prime lenses aren't 10 times better reflected in the price of the Tamron and as I said previously sharpness is subjective.

I do see differences as I own a Canon 500F4 but other factors such as light angle, micro contrast, long lens technique, knowledge of camera settings and experience further separate the final result.