 |
Page: 1 · 2
|
|
|
|
FatBoyAl
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 689
|
|
Review Date: Dec 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $140.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, nice contrast. Great colors! Incredibly cheap!
|
|
Cons:
|
Feels a bit plasticy.
|
|
|
Maybe we should rate it lower so Tokina doesn't get wind of this fine lens and decide it's worth more. After all, there doesn't seem to be any relation between production cost and selling price for most products - it's perception of value.
And this lens is a VALUE. Great shots from a $150 lens. I can only compare it to the (in price/performance) 50/1,8 Canon.
If you need a wide to wide zoom and aren't worried about not carrying an "L" rated lens, this is for you.
|
|
 Dec 25, 2005
|
|
cresus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 430
|
|
Review Date: Nov 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, price, color, solid
|
|
Cons:
|
some chromatic aberration, flare, filter size
|
|
|
First things first: on a 1.6 crop camera like the rebel xt, the filter can be stepped down from 77mm-58mm (means you can keep your filters you bought for the kit lens and get rid of it) without vignetting (up to 2 filters). So this is nice if you don't want to spend the money on a 77mm polarizer.
Secondly, I just got back from vacation in Bermuda and was astounded at the sharpness and color saturation this lens produced. Contrast is excellent. Overall, I'm extremely happy with this lens. And for the price, you can afford to actually use it...plus Tamron gives you a hood! I'm buying another Tamron because of this lens.
|
|
|
Nov 3, 2005
|
|
jrbehm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $149.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, price, ease of use, super wide zoom range and, oh yeah, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow, slightly soft corners at f3.5 and 19mm, CA especially in backlit situations
|
|
|
Bought this lens as a stopgap superwide when I started shooting a lot of assignments with Canon digital. As time went on, I felt a bit self-conscious about using a consumer grade lens on commercial shoots and started looking for a Canon or 3rd party replacement.
I've been amazed time after time by how well this lens compares to those would-be replacements. The test procedures may not be the most sophisticated, but they're real world comparisons of the sharpness of images made by this and whichever lens I'm testing under identical circumstances on location at stores, then viewed right in the store on my G4 Powerbook at 200, 300 and 400%. Even the employees of the various shops are surprised at the difference. The Tamron 19-35 has so far blown away all competition.
I may have gotten lucky, but nothing wrong with that. Even at f3.5, the corners are pretty acceptable, and by f5.6, images look sharp and contrasty from center to corner. I expose a lot of shots at f6.3 or 7.1, even at events by using multiple strobes.
Bottom line, I've had RAW images from this lens on my Canon 20D blown up to 60 inches and larger with outstanding results.
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2005
|
|
Jay Taft
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 713
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $140.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact and light. Produces nice images on a 1.6x DSLR for the price. Build quality good for the price.
|
|
Cons:
|
None for the price.
|
|
|
Bought used on ebay with 77mm uv filter, caps and hood. Although I had read the reviews here and elsewhere, I was surprised at the nice quality of the images. I compared 100%center crops from the Tamron 19-35 with those from the EF 20mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/2.8.
The primes were slightly sharper and more contrasty than the zoom at f/3.5 to f/4.5. But at f/5 the Tamron was nearly as sharp and had slightly more saturated color than the 20mm prime. At its maximum aperture of f3.5 (19mm) and f/4 (24mm) the Tamron 19-35 was sharper than either prime at f/2.8 max aperture.
This is a very-good-value wide angle zoom for general use, travel, etc. It should be fine for flattering people pictures and subjects that are not inherently super sharp, such as foggy mornings and similar situations.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2005
|
|
bobbybrown
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 12, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Mar 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
not too heavy, cheap starter wide angle, just wide angle on 1.6 but very little wide angle distortion effect. works on film
|
|
Cons:
|
slightly worry about build quality(you can hear some rattling if you shake it about). slow AF, long end not long enough so a good mid-zoom would be needed more than often.
|
|
|
i bought this lens from warehousexpress for £160, which was very cheap considering the nearest competition were way over £250, including Tamron's 17-35 f2.8.
|
|
|
Mar 3, 2005
|
|
ssthapit
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2004
Location: Nepal
Posts: 57
|
|
Review Date: Feb 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $125.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, Cheap, nice feel, takes good pictures in favorable conditions
|
|
Cons:
|
none, except might not survive a drop.
|
|
|
Bought it used of ebay, not intentionally, but was glad to have it. Much happier with this one than with Takina 20-35 f/2.8 even though the later had better reviews. Perhaps I had too much expectation from Tokina and loo little from Tamron.
My observations: (not side by side, I got Tamron after I sold Tokina)
* Lighter than Tokina. Tokina felt solid, but I prefered the smoother shiny finish of Tamron and Canons to the brushed finish of Tokina or Sigma EX lenses.
* Seemed to focus faster than Tokina
* Used indoor on 10D with bounce flash around f/4 or smaller. Satisfied. Good college party lens, for indoor coverage. Cheap enough that you won't be sad if some one spill beer on.
* Focus can be difficult in low light, but not as bad as Sigma 28mm f/1.8 EX
* I like the gold ring on the lens
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2005
|
|
CurtPick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 21, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3260
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $129.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
A great lens for the buck. Good build quality. Pretty sharp. Quick focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some softness on the corners when wide open. Noisy.
|
|
|
This was my first Wide lens that I used on the Canon 10D.
It took some very good pictures, with good color and contrast. Its very light but built rather well. If anyone needs a good little wide angle lens, this would be my first choice as a starter lens. I say that because I now own the 17-40 L lens. Although this isn't L quality it still takes some nice sharp pictures. A lot of bang for the buck !
|
|
|
Feb 2, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
23
|
140842
|
Feb 23, 2014
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
100% of reviewers
|
$132.06
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.35
|
9.65
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
