Shall i buy this lens ?

[Simon Spiers]

I have been looking for a cheaper anternative to the Tamron SP AF17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di and came up with a Tamron AF 19-35mm f3.5-4.5.
Any feedback of this please:confused:

[cactusclay]

Well, on the photo zone test, your later choice is rated as sub-average, while the former is rated good. Sub-average seems like such a dismal description.

[sing4u]

If you go to this link, you will see it received mostly favorable reviews:

http://www.pcphotoreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Vivitar/PRD_84612_3128crx.aspx

I have this lens, only paid around $150 after rebate. It is a nice lens for casual shooting.

[darkdrakon]

I like my tamron 19-35 ...fantastic plastic as it's been dubed . it's not an L lens but for a 150.00 you cant go wrong

[sing4u]

ooops wrong link....here you go for the Tamrom 19-35

http://www.pcphotoreview.com/35mm%20Zoom/Tamron/PRD_142960_3128crx.aspx

[jobber73]

Would this be a better choice than the 18-55 kit lens?

[cactusclay]

You would obviously have better range with the 18-55 lens and in my opinion there isn't going to be a great deal of image quality difference between the two. Most people that test lenses don't bother on the ones that cost so little, so it's hard to get a comparison test. I used the 18-55 lens for over a year and though it isn't the shapest tool in the shed, I do have some excelent portraits from it and I still keep it for a back up. For a hundred bucks, I think it's hard to beat the range and if you are looking for better quality, I would take a bigger step up than 50 bucks in price. If you get up around three hundred bucks, there are some pretty good consumer lenses ie: tamron 28-75 canon 24-85, 28-105, or even some of the Tokina's in that range score fairly well. Hope that helps.

[jobber73]

That's kind of what I figured, but the 18-55 gets such scathing reviews and the Tamrom 19-35 seemed to get generally postive comments. I had to ask. :)

[12345Michael54321]

Another option in the same general focal length and speed range is Canon's EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. It's a fine performer with good build quality, and can not infrequently be found for just over $200, in excellent used condition. (I picked up this lens for $225 in mint condition, but that included the Canon lens hood.)

Just a thought.

[TammieO]

I've seen some awsome photos posted in the photosharing forum that used the 18-55 kit lens.

[12345Michael54321]

Yup, the 18-55mm lens is fully capable of outstanding results, when used within its limits. (By which I mean, it's not the ideal lens for available darkness shots. It's not what you should reach for if you're going to be in harsh environmental conditions. It's not the fastest focusing lens in the world. Etc.)

Day after tomorrow, I'm taking pictures of my nephew's birthday party. It's going to start at Build-a-Bear, then move to the other side of the mall for pizza and birthday cake, and end up at the carousel for a half hour or so of rides. I plan on taking many, many pictures, given that my nephew is the best 4 year old in the world, and his 6 year old sister is remarkably beautiful and brilliant. (Hey, I don't have kids of my own, so I dote on my sister's kids.)

Most of the shots will be taken at moderate aperture, using a Canon Speedlite. Framing will call for everything from reasonably wide angle, to short telephoto. I don't anticipate there being any blowing sand or snow. I won't be doing architectural shots where a tiny amount of distortion in straight lines around the edges of the frame is a big problem.

So for my purposes, the 18-55mm lens is a fine choice. And while I'll have an EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, and an EF 50mm f/1.8 II, and an EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L in my camera bag, I don't expect to need them.