Tamron AF 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5

I was looking for a wide-angle zoom for my Elan 7E. This Tamron 19-35mm

f/3.5-4.5 is rated as a pretty good lens in Fred Miranda's website - <a

href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=250&sort=7&cat=43&page=1">link

here</a>. Surprisingly I am getting mixed reviews at other websites ... I

understand its not a very fast lens but I am more concerned with the optical

performances. Does anyone have any optical test comparison data for this one ?

 

<BR><BR>I know about the other choices like Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 Di LD

Aspherical (IF) or Canon L lenses but not concentrating on them right now for my

budget constraints. Zenitar 16mm f2.8 would also probably be nice but for

personal reasons I would prefer a zoon.

<BR>

Thanks for your kind help.

<BR><BR>

Regards,<BR>

Amlan

This is one of the "you get what you pay for" lenses.

 

It's not bad ... but it certainly cannot compete with the 17-35/2.8-4 that you also mention.

It is very good for the price, but you can get the very same lens as a Cosina, Vivitar, Phoenix, Voightlander and several other names for rather less money. If you buy the Cosina for a song, you really have a great deal. I've seen them new at Adorama for about 65.00 USD, maybe half of the Tamron price.

Now that Tamron's 17-35 is selling for less than $300 (and is by all accounts an excellent lens), there's little reason to go after the 19-35.

I bought one of these about 2 years ago. I paid about $200 CAD at a local shop. IQ was absolutely awful. Purple fringing was so bad I brought the lens back for a second same, which was just the same. AF was useless, it did not snap onto anything - no big deal for a wide-angle lens which needs to be stopped down. Just turn of the AF and set to hyperfocal. The lens was very blurry, very poor contrast. I managed to get a half-decent picture in the middle of the zoom range at f/16. 19 mm was so bad that at the edges nothing was recognizable. I sold the lens a few weeks later for $150, lesson learned.

Hi, I`ve been using the later Tokina 19 35 as a backup for a few years, slightly different, the focus and zoom is internal so the front element does not turn and the lens does not change size, it is also heavier. It is marginally better IQ than the kit 18 55, the build is so much better. most of these lenses arn`t much different from the kit, true YGWYPF. This has just been covered recently,just follow the post by Robert Thommes for more info.

 

HTH

I paid $120 for a used one in mint conditions, it's good, a little vignetting at 19 but really not bad for the price, well, yes, mixed reviews for this lens...

Same question - different day, see here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LI38

 

I liked it as an entry level wide lens for my film and digital cameras. Nice for landscapes.

It is no where as bad as some people say it is. Like many things on the web, you got to take reviews with a pitch of salt. I find it perfectly good lens if you stop down to F8. Never have problem with auto focus. As it is a wide angle lens focus speed is not an issue. If you want a lens to shoot wide open and give very good qulaity, you will have to look else where and spend a lot more money.

Thank you all for your comments/suggestions. This is exactly what I found elsewhere on the web ... a mixed response ... anyway, I will probably ponder over it :) Didn't know that the Tamron 17-35 is now priced around $280 ... thanks to Greg for that. I would probably consider it more seriously now.

 

<BR><BR>

Amlan