A&P is the tamron 19-35MM f3.5-4.5 worth a damn?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by e.pie, Nov 24, 2006.

  1. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2006
  2. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    Just save up for a Tamron 17 50 f2.8 or Canon 17 40 f4.0L
     
  3. eof

    eof New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tamron 28-75 f2.8 FTW
     
  4. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    what about the tamron 17-35? :o
     
  5. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    I've read about how badass that lens is but I want something a little bit wider, I've got the 50mm to handle that range for now :hs:
     
  6. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    my roommate has one..he has taken some good pics with it, but i am really not sure how much better it is than the canon kit lens. I bet the main reason it costs more is due to full frame coverage. I have the 17-35 and its way better than the kit lens and works well on full frame within limitations (17mm and 2.8 gives some dark corners as expected)
     
  7. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    I've got the 350D, 1.6 crop :o

    though now that I've looked at it, the tamron 17-35 is looking like the lens of choice for me, I'm seeing them go for around $200-250 used, which I can fit into my budget pretty easily :hs:

    after I get that I'll start saving up for the 28-75
     
  8. Redliner7

    Redliner7 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would you get the 17-35 then a 28-75?

    Why not just save up and get one lens once? I'd go for the 17-50 F2.8 from Tamron.
     
  9. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    the 19-35 is crap. overall, the lens is just very limiting. get the 17-50 f/2.8 or go wider and get the tokina 12-24.
     
  10. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    hmm, how bad is the distortion on the 12-24
     
  11. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    i really hated using the 19-35. A friend purchased it and i borrowed it for a couple of days. The af is -very- inconsistant, photo quality similar to canon kit lenses, 3.5-4.5.

    so, D- from me.
     
  12. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    Are you only going to be taking photos of your car? if cost is a concern, what about a prime lens?
     
  13. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    no I take pictures of other things, lol

    oklahoma city just kinda sucks for photography, there isn't shit out here :hs: I need to make a trip to the zoo sometime
     
  14. Schproda

    Schproda New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    Roger that! I even got the 17-55 F/2.8 Tamron. Both are great.

    Get the Tamron.
     

Share This Page