Tamron AF 19-35mm - is it good?

[nilesh2]

Hello all

 

I am amateur photographer with about 1 year experience. I have one

Nikon 28-100G lens and one Nikon70-300G lens. As my main interest is

landscape/nature photography, I want to buy a better wide-angle lens

than Nikon 28-100G. Is Tamron AF 19-35mm lens recomended in this

case?

 

Thanks and regards,

Nilesh Dhakras.

[vivek iyer]

I have no experience with that particular lens. But, generally, Tamron is opined here to give the biggest bang for the buck.

 

Can't say if that translates to picture taking.

[remco-jan.woldhuis]

Very short answer: yes :-), that is, for the money. There are better wide angle zooms, but not at the price level.

 

If I look at your other lenses, I wouldn't be suprised if the Tamron outperformes your Nikon lenses.

 

An example I took with this lens can be found in my gallery on photo.net at http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=0093qd&photo_id=2167708&photo_sel_index=0

[walterh]

how about a MF 24mm F2.8 or MF 28mm used lens? in case you want a "better" lens for landscape...

[chris haake]

Walter has a good point. Go for the Tamron for flexibility; however, for about the same price (especially used), the Nikkor 24 f/2.8 is an outstanding performer. I haven't compared the two, though, so I can't do a head-to-head. Could someone else?

[jbq]

If you are looking for something significantly wider than your existing lens, that's not necessarily a bad choice.

 

However if you're looking for improvements in image quality (without necessarily chasing ultra-wides), a 24/2.8 or 35/2 might be a much better choice for a similar cost.

[mendonphoto]

I bought it for my digital rebel and it wasn't even as good as the cheap kit lens. I sold it.

[frankl]

I've got the Tamron 19-35 lens, and I haven't found it to be a bad performer. Sure you're going to get distortion out of it, it's an ultra wide angle lens. It's not as good as a Nikon $1000 zoom of similar range, but it's nice for what it is at the price.

 

I'll attach one of the pictures I took with it at 19mm and printed full-frame for your reference.

 

Cheeers.

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>Walter Schroeder, nov 26, 2004; 10:32 a.m.

"how about a MF 24mm F2.8 or MF 28mm used lens? in case you want a "better" lens for landscape..."</i><p>

 

I'm guessing that since his current lenses are G series and he's a new photographer (probably with a recent consumer AF body), that means he's using a body that won't meter with manual focus Nikkors. May I suggest the 24/2.8 or 28/2.8 <B>AF-D</B> in that case?<P>

Mike

[Prof-K]

How about Nikon AF-D 18-35mm? 24mm is also an excellent option, its really a great lens. Sorry, can't help about the Tamron.

[wilsontsoi]

For film AF SLR, both for the money, and especially for the image quality, go with Nikkor AF 24 2.8D instead of third parties. If you're in digital, get the Nikkor AF 18-70 3.5-4.5 DX.

[nilesh2]

hi all

thanks a LOT for the reply..

one query: Nikkor 24/2.8 or 28/2.8 AF-D will focus with F65?

[wilsontsoi]

Both will AF equally well with your N65. The "D" version has a chip that transfers distance info to the body (no big deal in practical use IMHO.) Either one will do.

[alistair o]

I have this lens and consider it to be only an average performer. I do not think that it would be a material improvement over your 28-100 at the wide end. It is of course a lot wider which may be what you want. I would instead look to a good AF-D Nikkor prime around 28mm.

[bill_tait]

<p>I just got A tamron af 19-35 f3.5-4.5 , I'm surprised just how good it performs for the cost .<br>

My canon 55-200 takes great pictures , but was very narrow . on my xt .<br>

I needed to get a good cheap wide angle . And so far the pictures are just as nice as the canon lens .<br>

I'm a happy camper . it's light , well made , focus even in low light fast . You get a very big bang for the buck . I did have the manual version but it needed to be stoped down to f8 to get a sharp picture . not this one it seems good to f4 . filter size 77mm is my one gripe I would perfer 67mm . o well no biggy .<br>

Note I was leary about this purchase , but fred merandas site , all whom had one loved it so I took a chance . glad I did .<br>

We are not all rich or pros that can purchase $1000-3000 lenses . But we still want decent shots that we can show our friends . this will do it .</p><div></div>