Another sleeper among AF zooms

<p>The lens I am reporting on is the Tamron 24-70 f3.3-5.6 zoom. Like its competition from Sigma of the same range, this zoom didn't attract a very big following. Both lenses were quite the bargain when new, but the Sigma that I own developed a grinding noise in its AF. So I picked up a used Tamron complete with hood and caps for less than 40 USD. <br>

Upon comparison, the Tamron is bigger in diameter (but both take 62mm filters), but is shorter in length. Also, the Tamron has a metal lens mount rather than polycarbonate. <br>

The Tamron I have can in Minolta Maxxum flavor so I decided to test it on my Maxxum 2xi. So first a few shots of the camera and lens.</p><div></div>

<p>A close up to show the lens markings.</p><div></div>

<p>From the first photo the lens appears to be a handy size for walking around when you primarily desire wide to normal coverage. The real test, of course, is the images. First of all, this lens is not a pro level or advanced amatueur lens like the SP 24-135 f3.5-5.6 Tamron. Not really sure if I'd even call that one a pro lens; it's just priced like one. <br>

For these images I used a roll of Ilford HP5+ (yeah, went for that 2 roll bargain pack mentioned by another poster). I developed in HC110 dilution B and scanned the negatives with an Epson V600. <br>

My impressions: at medium to infinitey focus there is little distortion. Move, in close, it is like many other low price wide angle zooms- distortion is noticable. Sharpness seems reasonable too.</p><div></div>

<p>The next two shots are of the same subject at each end of the focal length range.</p><div></div>

<p>Going out to 70mm for the next one. 70mm is an odd focal length: a bit too long for normal, but a bit too short for telephoto. The popular range for portraits is about 80 to 105 or so. If your interest includes portraits, go for a used Maxxum 24-85 or 24-105, or the 24-135 SP.</p><div></div>

<p>Now I'm not going to "sugarcoat" this presentation: The next image shows the barrel distortion that is present at the closer focusing distances.</p><div></div>

<p>The verdict: nice, compact "walking around lens" if you don't need much telephoto. Also not a bad lens for quick snaps at a party if your flash can cover 24mm. Be aware that a pop up flash might be partially shaded by the front of the lens even if the hood is removed. <br>

BTW, close-ups are okay if you zoom beyond 50mm or so as the last image demostrates.</p><div></div>

<p>Interesting. I recently bought the first standard-range zoom I've owned in a while (since I sold my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L). I wanted a working Minolta X-570, and the one I got came with the old MD 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. It's not a bad little lens at all, though after shooting mostly primes or the occasional one-touch telephoto zoom (Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm), the two-touch design took some getting used to again.</p>

<p>The first AF lens I ever owned was a Tamron 28-85mm 3.5-5.6 zoom for my Nikon N70. I bought it in June, 2000 on ebay, I think I paid around $59 for it second hand. It arrived in new condition in the box. I found the quality from that lens to be outstanding considering it was so cheap. I replaced it a few months later with the even better Nikon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5.</p>

<p>I am a big Tamron fan, though their lenses are constructed nearly as solidly as Nikon or even Tokina. But optically, I find Tamron SP lenses to be as good as any Nikon lens I've ever used (and yes, I've never used any of the newer "Nano-Coat" lenses, as I can't afford them). I currently have the Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4 Aspherical SP zoom lens, and the Tamron 14mm f2.8 SP full frame wide angle (not a fisheye). Both lenses are superb and I won't ever part with them. I did have trouble with an older Tamron AF zoom on my D80 four years ago. It was the Tamron 20-40mm AF zoom and it wouldn't focus reliably on the D80 so I sent it back to the seller for a refund. I really tried to get it to work well, but it wasn't any good for me. Fortunately the 17-35mm that I've owned for a few years has worked flawlessly on my D700 and F100 cameras.</p>

<p>Craig, Dave, thanks for the comments. Didn't get a lot of responses, but one must remember that the 24-70 range, at least among the lower priced zooms wasn't very popular. Most users who wanted a 24mm wide end for a zoom went for the longer range 24-85, 24-105, and 24-135 models or at least for some of the faster ones.</p>

<p>Oddly enough, I was just given an even narrower wide zoom, a Sun 24-40mm f/3.5 in Minolta MD mount. I haven't tried it yet, but the glass seems clean and the mechanics work well.</p>

Craig, I've heard of this lens. In MD mount I have the Minolta 24-50. Pretty handy range when tele isn't needed. Vivitar

also marketed a Series 1 24-70 in various manual focus mounts.

<p>I bought this Tamron 24-70mm in EOS mount back in 1994, shortly before going on a trip to Taiwan. When over there I used it with an EOS 650 and both performed flawlessly. I was shooting slides on the trip and all the slides I took with the 24-70 were quite sharp.</p>

<p>I have an EOS DSLR now and have done some critical testing of the lens with this camera. Honestly, I was surprised at the sort of resolution it delivered. It is definitely sharper than the EF 28-80mm kit lens that came with my Elan IIe.</p>

<p>In its day, this sort of focal length was even described in reviews as a "extra-long" zoom, the technology having lots of problems to get where we are today with decent 18-300mm zooms. They can be surprisingly good, if the demands made on them are not too strenuous.<br>

I've bought some in this range for some of my old film cameras.</p>

<p>Here's what I think may be Canon's first plastic mount lens--the Canon EF 35-80mm PZ lens, meant as a companion for the plastic camera lens mount on the EOS 700 -- an early (1990) SLR meant primarily for point and shoot use. The <strong>p</strong>ower <strong>z</strong>oom on the lens was controlled by the buttons.</p><div></div>