<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tamron 17-50/2.8 vs Konica Minolta 50/1.7 and 18-70/3.5-5.6</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stocking-photo.com/2008/04/22/tamron_17-50f28-konica_minolta_50f17-and-kit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stocking-photo.com/2008/04/22/tamron_17-50f28-konica_minolta_50f17-and-kit/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:54:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tamron 17-50/2.8 close up problems &#124; Stock Photo</title>
		<link>http://www.stocking-photo.com/2008/04/22/tamron_17-50f28-konica_minolta_50f17-and-kit/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>Tamron 17-50/2.8 close up problems &#124; Stock Photo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:32:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stock.skrypnet.pl/?p=27#comment-4</guid>
		<description>[...] For me Tamron is a great lens anyhow. Check out a comparison of Tamron with Konica Minolta 50/1.7. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] For me Tamron is a great lens anyhow. Check out a comparison of Tamron with Konica Minolta 50/1.7. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
