Tamron SP AF 24-135 F3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF Macro  reviews

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: 1texasgolfer   review date: May-20-13  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

275 (nos)

positive:

Really good range perfect for me as a walk around lens.

negative:

none for the price or at least not after it was sent in for repair under warranty which is another story. Tamron was very difficult to say the least but in the end they did repair it.

comment:

I love this lens buy one and you'll love it to. It's not meant to be a low light lens so don't expect that. Pick one up for the range and sharpness

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: dinadan   review date: January-14-13  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 24-105mm 3.5-4.5

price paid:

250 Euro (new)

positive:

colours
range on both ff and aps-c
sharp when stopped down a little
compact size

negative:

not very bright
af could be faster

comment:

This is a nice compact walkaround for both ff and aps-c. The image quality is comparable to the Sony 24-105mm. The colours are nice, but different from classic Minolta.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: m3krister   review date: August-05-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 18-125/3,8-5,6 DC HSM

price paid:

200 EUR (used)

positive:

Focus
Picture quality
Usability

negative:

Zoomring a bit sticky
Low contrats in lighgt areas

comment:

Goos picture quality.
Good colors, although not as outstanding as "old Minolta".
Contrast a bit week sometimes especially in light areas.
Wish it was shorter than 24 mm!
Focus seems to work well with very little hunting.
Perfect as walkabout lens.
Weight balances well on my A550 but on less heavy cameras not so well.
Difficult to compare to my Sigma 18-125, the Sigma feels a bit more "solid" and has the advantegae of 18 mm, but the picture quality is not noticably different.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: zozo   review date: July-07-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

CZ 24-70 F2.8

price paid:

180 €

positive:

Sharp on 24 mm
Zoom range on FF
Light
Price

negative:

Sharpness at wide open

comment:

I love this lens for its zoom coverage. If I go for travelling, I just bought only this lens.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 3 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: godsakes   review date: January-22-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

carl zeiss 16-80mm
Sony 18-250mm

price paid:

£160

positive:

great range
decent sharpness
value

negative:

SLOW AF
nervous bokeh
pincushion distortion
impossible to get ideal micro adjustment

comment:

Since getting a A850 i was looking for a FF equivalent to the CZ 16-80mm and sadly i don't think there's quite a match on FF but this tamron does a reasonable job but ultimately (other than build) the CZ out classes this lens in everyway (sharp wide open, faster AF, better bokeh etc). That said the CZ is at least double the price 2nd hand so long as you can live with the slow AF and image quality closer to the 18-250mm then you'll be happy with this lens.

One of the problem with this is there's focus shift so it's impossible to set a micro adjustment that's ideal throughout the zoom range, squeezing the best out of this lens at the long end can mean you get softer results at the short end and vice versa. The issue is most pronounced when you're shooting wide open so in the end I've decided to optimise this lens for shooting at f5.6 which in my case needed a -13 micro adjustment.

Despite all these buts I still think it's a worthwhile FF lens, or rather all the alternative walkabout lenses have their own share of drawbacks such as long MFD, CA, worse range etc in the case of the minolta 28-135mm/35-105mm.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Rebecca   review date: January-08-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Leica D-Lux 2

price paid:

199 USD (new)

positive:

Takes good photos

negative:

Heavy
Can't figure out how to use it

comment:

Several reviewers have said this lens is their "walk-around" "travel" lens.

For the past 5 years, my walk-around/travel/everything has been my Leica D-Lux 2 point and shoot. So far as I'm concerned, if that's the category, then the Leica is the competition.

How does this lens stack up? First of all, it cost a LOT less than the Leica. But the lens by itself weighs more and takes up more room. (Remember: walk-around/travel lens) The Tamron is also slower than the Leica. I think of it as an out-door lens. I can't imagine trying to use it in a museum or historic building. Even if it would work, the af hunts and hunts in low light, whereas the Leica just takes the picture.

The Tamron takes nice photos, better photos than the Leica. Much better. They're sharper with a lot less flare. It also has a longer focal length. However, the Leica will shoot much broader, which can be useful, too.

If I had to choose between taking this lens and my battered up old Leica on a long-distance (i.e., ocean-crossing) trip, I would be flummoxed.
I don't see this as either a walk-around or a travel lens for me and the things I like to do. If was going to be outdoors all the time, it would be different, but I'm a restaurant/museum/historic building kind of traveler, not a hiking/camping/mountain climber kind.

I'm going to keep the lens because it does take nice photos. I'll figure out what to do with it as time goes by.

Correction: On the off-chance that some lost soul might actually take my review seriously, I feel I must correct what I said above. First, I'm new to the world of slt; bought a Sony a55 last fall, and have been trying to figure it out ever since.

I've been unhappy with the low-light colors I've gotten right along. The faster the lens, the better it did, but still unhappy. This lens in particular made low-light photos that were orangey, grainy and blotchy. I would be embarrassed to show them to my cat. Tonight, I figured out that I can change the white balance in the camera. (I still don't really know what white balance IS, btw.) It turns out, that meddling with the white balance can really improve the way your camera handles light.

It made all my lenses better, but it REALLY turned this one around ! It still has a firm hold on last place in my affections. But it will give you a usable low-light photo is you just know how to use the camera.

Now, I'll have to learn how to adjust it for other lighting. But I've found a pretty good recipe for my living room.

Summary: I think this lens is a lot better in more capable hands than it is in mine.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: cev   review date: December-31-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 55-200

price paid:

199.00

positive:

Sharp lens with great color. great range from telephoto to wide angle.

negative:

Tends to be a tad on the contrast side. Zoom is tight to handle. Sticks.

comment:

This lens is bulky but solid. it also offers a great range and will be my main lens for everyday uses. It is quite sharp throughout and the color and contrast is great. The contrast is a bit high as some light areas almost too over exposed. The weight does not rally bother me as it is well balanced and feels rugged. Came with sturdy case also. Better color than the Sony 55-200 but is not a D lens for flash.

After more use, I adjusted the camera so the contrast is much better.
Very pleasing results. The only irritation is that the lock button sticks occasionally to free up the zoom.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: ColinNZ01   review date: August-25-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony DT 18-70 kit lens
Minolta 70-210 "beercan"
Sigma 18-125 F3.5-5.6 DC

price paid:

225 USD new

positive:

Great range for a walkaround lens
Extremely good value

negative:

A bit on the heavy side!
Lens hood is very good but could be a bit more sturdy
AF can be a bit slow

comment:

I had trouble finding one of these at a good price so when I was able to get it NEW at around 225 USD on eBay I grabbed it!! I am very happy with this lens.

I have had this lens since January 2009 and I use this on my camera pretty much all the time when I'm at home. It produces pictures with very good colour and sharpness. I have not noticed any distortion.

It's just a bit big and heavy to take on overseas trips for my liking. I have a Sigma 18-125 which I use as a travel lens as this is much smaller and lighter. Although the Tamron produces nicer images than the Sigma.

This is my favourite lens.

November 2011: Just updated my camera to the A580 and this lens just gets better! Focusing seems a lot quicker on the A580 than I had become used to on my old A100.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: leohendriks   review date: August-18-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

MI 24-85/3.5-4.5
KM 28-75/2.8

price paid:

€ 145 (nos)

positive:

range
mfd
color
sharpness

negative:

slowish autofocus.
a bit heavier then I would like for backpacking

comment:

I was looking for something with extended zoom on my A850 (like 16-80 on my A700) for backpacking. I stumbled over this one.
I have been using it for a months now under several conditions. Focus can be slowish. Not a problem for static subjects but sports will be challenging (understatement).
Image quality is pretty good.
Color is satisfactory to good (I would say on par with 24-85; better then Sigma 17-70 and 16-80).
Sharpness is pretty good for this older zoom. As expected stopping down improves things. I shot in low light with high ISO (1250) and was not dissapointed at all.
No experience with flare so far.
Distortions is decent (indoor shots from groups in confined spaces). Have not checked on lines in the border area though.

A850 with lens fits in a Lowepro Toploader Zoom 50AW.
With its 530 grams and A850 I carry a bit more weight in my backpack. However range and image quality justify the load (for me).

Updated info on sharpness (all open aperture):
@24 mm Mi 24-85 is better then Tamron 24-135.
@28 mm Mi24-85 is best, Tamron 24-135 is close and KM28-75 is worst.
@75 mm KM 28-75 and T 24-135 are best and Mi 24-85 is worst.
@85 mm and beyond no competition for Tammy but IQ is good to very good.

Updated on flare:
Used during a bicycle trip through France. The lens showed somewhat more flare then I expected. Reduced the rating to a 4.

Nevertheless: very much recommended.
If one is looking for a lens with an extended range starting @ 24mm, this is definitely one to consider.
I have no info on sample variation and use it solely on A850 (micro-adjust). There is no obtrusive vignetting (far less then 24-105).

Unfortunately not manufactured anymore.

Shaprness reduced to 3.5 because of corners. Stopping down gives only little improvement.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: dumbasadoorknob   review date: August-06-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Min 24/2.8RS
Min 24-135
KM 24-105
Sony 135/1.8 ZA

price paid:

235 usd new

positive:

Handy size
True colors
Light weight
72mm filters

negative:

Fiddly shade

comment:

I think I prefer this lens to my imperfect Min 28-135. I really dislike my KM 24105.

The Tam 24135 has a lens shade -- as small and useless as the Min 24 shade. But if you've ever dropped your camera to find the shade sacrificed itself and saved your camera, mount and lens, you'll never go without a shade again. The Min 28135 doesn't have a shade.

It's the same length as the Min 28135 when extended, but much smaller, and lighter than the Min when closed. It's not ADI fitted, but neither is the 28135, and I scarcely use flash. It is half a stop slower at the long end, but again I often set my camera to ISO 400 so don't notice it.

It has a zoom lock. The Min 28135 does not.

Like the 28135, it uses 72mm filters, which I like (since I've got the Tok 17, Min 85G, 200G and 100400, which all take 72s.)

The colors are excellent, almost as good as the Min 28135, and slightly better than the Min 24 (which lacks contrast.) This lens of course is not as clear as the Zeiss 135 -- but I like its colors better.

The quality of the image is very high. It is necessary to be very careful in focussing, otherwise there is blur or wobble or a poor result. The Min 28135 is more robust in focussing. The Zeiss is instant. But, when focus is on, there is almost nothing to discern in images from the 28135 and the 24135. The Tam has a useful quasi-macro range (a MFD of half a meter) which autofocusses. I like the Min 28135's blue macro switch, but it's far less convenient.

My Min 28135 clunks when put onto the camera, has the focus ring in the wrong place for me, is noisy generally, creeps, has no shade and shows the signs of hard use (which it has had!) The Tam 24135 has a slightly wider reach (which I don't use much,) is silent, stable, shaded, with utterly satisfactory colors and quite acceptable image quality. For me, it is better overall, and it's going to pair with my Min 100400.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: JimK   review date: July-26-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70 Kit
Minolta 35-105

price paid:

$400 USD (new 2002)

positive:

Build
Ease of use
Zoom Range

negative:

Not quite wide enough for inside shots, have to switch to 18-70

comment:

I purchased a used 800SI in 2002 with a really terrible Min 80-200 zoom. After exhaustive research I chose the Tamron 24-135, and have never regretted it.
2 years ago I purchased an A300 with the kit lens. Again, the 24-135 may as well have been glued to the A300, because it almost never came off. I have extended my used lens collection, and now have a larger variety of good Min glass, but the Tammy is still one of my favorites.
UPDATE: I now have an A580, and as another reviewer reported, it just gets better. Only complaint is that 24MM on APS-C just isn't wide enough indoors.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: NLPIX   review date: April-30-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

minolta 28-105 3.5-4.5
sigma 24-70 2.8 DG EX HHSM

price paid:

120,00

positive:

Zoom range FF
Detail captured
Size/weight

negative:

No D lens
Slow AF (f4 at 30mm, f5.6 at 70-135mm)
Noisy AF
Visable distortion at 24 mm

comment:

I had one, some years a go on my a-100 and sold it after purchasing better gear. But on my A900 a really missed a good ff walk-about lens. I tried the minolta 28-105 but missed a few mm wide angle. The sony 24-105 3.5-4.5 had a lot of vignette on the A900. With no crop factor, more zoom is also nice. So when a tamron 24-135 was offered to me good as new for a great price i was very happy to own one again. It is now my primary day-trip lens. On my A900 without the vertical grip, fitting in a small camera bag, looks like a mid range DSLR but it delivers professional grade pictures.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: ERH   review date: February-20-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 28-75/2.8
Tamron 35-105/2.8
Minolta 28-70G
Sony 24/2ZA
Sony 35/1.4G
Sony 50/1.4
Minolta 85/1.4
Sony 135/1.8ZA
Minolta 28-135/4-4.5
Big beercan

price paid:

350 USD

positive:

Good colors
Acceptable sharpness at any aperture (for zoom)
Very good build
Perfect range for FF

negative:

Collecting dust while zooming
Bokeh at long end

comment:

Now its my main travel zoom (for summer, when and where much light or I don`t want to take any other lens). Perfect range (among any other zoom I knew about), acceptable sharpness at any aperture, neutral colors (comparing to other Tamrons).
(Now I bought Oldman - Minolta 28-135/4-4.5, and see now only one point pro Oldman - it has a little faster aperture at long end).
Certainly, this Tamron does not replace all my primes, but for summer travel photo I don`t want to take any other lens (if I go for a walk with one lens).
And replace it only when Sony start to produce something like 24-120/4G (or ZA).

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 3 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: ghmcs   review date: September-24-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-135
Minolta 28-105
Tamron 28-75

price paid:

$288 USD (new)

positive:

useful focal range for full frame, low cost, relatively small size and weight

negative:

image quality isn't very good

comment:

I considered this lens as an everyday replacement for the much bigger, heavier Minolta 28-135. My bottom line - I think this lens is over rated and there are better choices. On either APSC or full frame, this lens isn't bad at the short end, but suffers by comparison at 35mm and above. The f/3.5 spec is appealing, but by the time it reaches 50mm it is slower than either of the Minolta lenses I compared it to. Instead, for full frame, I'd go with either the Tamron 28-75 or Minolta 28-105 and then switch over to a telephoto lens. The zoom ring is really stiff on this lens, but maybe because it's new.
UPDATE for full frame digital. -7 micro adjustment for focus needed to achieve a good balance between 24mm f/3.5 and 135mm f/5.6. Conclusions above still stand; there are better choices than this for the same money, or less.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: jvsanchez   review date: August-16-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 18-125/3.5-5.6 DC IF
Tamron 28-105/4-5.6

price paid:

220 USD (Used)

positive:

-Heavy, well built, professional grade glass
-Great focal range
-Great IQ
-Nice colors and contrast
-Full Frame

negative:

-3.5-5.6
-Screw-driven AF (as opposed to SSM)
-Hood could be sturdier
-Full frame construction takes out wide end on APS-C

comment:

Sharpness:

photos are a little soft wide open, stopped down to f/6.3-10, they become almost 3 dimensional. Detail resolved is excellent, IQ is well above regular consumer lenses, definitely worth of Tamron's SP designation. Sure, it's not the same quality as the most expensive G or CZ lenses, but it's also a fraction of the cost.

Color:

the color coming from this lens is very nice. Contrast benefits from a slight boost in PP, color from a very slight vibrancy increase in Aperture 3, though this will be more to individual photographer's tastes, IMO. Either way, colors are accurate and well saturated.

Build:

Build is very good. Plenty of metal, nice weight and heavily damped zoom and focus rings. Zoom creep is non-existent. The only thing that irks me about the build is that the second zoom extension is plastic, while the first is metal. Still, it's better built than cheaper lenses. Front and rear elements are very obviously coated, as shown by the conspicuous bright green tint.

Distortion & Flare:

Distortion is well controlled. Flare appeared when pointing directly into the sun with the sun near the edge of the frame. Also, i had no issues with vignetting on my A200 at any focal length/aperture

Overall:

a great lens, worth of being called professional grade. I would've paid the current new asking price of 399.99, but getting it for only 220 makes the whole deal even sweeter. A great walk around lens for FF and APS-C alike, though APS users will need something wider, as 24 becomes an equivalent 36mm.

With my own review system, it scored a 97/120, while the Sigma 18-125 scored 65/120 and the Tamron 28-105 scored 56/120. For comparison, the Sony 18-70 scored a 37/120.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: ilipin   review date: March-19-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 70-200/2.8
Minolta 35-70/4.0
CZ 24-70/2.8

price paid:

400 USD (new)

positive:

Zoom range on FF
Light
Price
Build

negative:

Sharpness at wide open

comment:

Before, I use CZ 24-70/2.8 as walk-around, but CZ has small range, 1kg weight, huge size - useless in outdoor, in nature shooting.

I take this lens as walk-around for A850. Excellent range for FF, good quality (at F7.1-9), well build. In good light situation, at F8, I cannot see difference (without microscope) between CZ and this Tamron.

You could see some compare tests with
Tamron 70-200/2.8
Minolta 35-70/4.0
CZ 24-70/2.8
http://picasaweb.google.ru/ilipin01/MyqJTH#

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: jakejones   review date: February-21-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Small Beercan
Beercan
Large Beercan
Minolta 85mm 1.4 G
Minolta 50mm 1.7
Tamron 20mm 1.8
Sigma 90mm 2.8 macro
Minolta 24-105
Tamron 24-105 f/2.8
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8
Sigma 28-70 f/2.8

price paid:

299 USD (new)

positive:

Zoom Range
Size
Price

negative:

Discontinued
Vignette at 24mm

comment:

This is a great walk-around/vacation lens. The zoom range is quite usable, and the image quality is much better than expected. The lens is on the heavy size, but reasonable, given its zoom range and build quality. The Minolta 24-105 had failed to impress me, and I had been using the small beercan as my walk-around lens for some time. This lens has taken over that spot (I do miss the "macro" feature of the small beercan, but for casual shooting, this lens's range is more useful.)

On FF, at 24mm this lens does vignette quite a bit, especially wide open. The vignetting at 24mm does get much better by f/7.1, but never completely goes away. At 35mm and longer, there is very little vignette even wide open.

There is some barrel distortion at the wider end, but on a lens with this much zoom, some distortion is to be expected, and this lens does control the distortion very well. There is some CA in the corners, especially when wide open, but again, well controlled, and much better than I've seen in many lenses...an amount easily corrected in post processing.

Where this lens really shines is the IQ. No, its not a CZ prime lens, but for a zoom of this range, I was quite surprised by the IQ, much sharper than you would think at all the zoom lengths.

Focus speed is also good, taking a little over a second to zoom from closest to infinity and back. And, as noted by the reviewer before me, the front element does not rotate.

Edit: I should note, I'm using this lens on an a900, and have adjusted the Micro Focus, the lens back-focuses quite a bit (more than any other lens I own). Once corrected, the lens is very sharp, but on a camera body that does not have micro-focus-adjust, this lens would probably be unusable.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: monte920   review date: January-14-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-105mm (D)
Minolta 28-135mm
Sony 24-70mm ZA

price paid:

$180 (New old stock)

positive:

Convenient for daily photography
Excellent sharpness for such focal lengths
Well controlled flare
Well controlled distortion
Fully usable for full frame
Relatively cheap

negative:

No new, digitally optimized version
Slightly bulky
No (D) function
Wish to have bigger aperture

comment:

There have been several reviews on this lens previously. But I believe I am the first one reviewing it on A900 full frame camera.

This lens will surprise you! It has been discontinued and selling cheap. However, its IQ is almost as good as Sony 24-70mm ZA!

It is a shame that there are currently no good travel lenses available for A900/A850 FF camera. The IQ of Sony 24-70mm is great. But it is expensive, heavy and bulky. It is also not long enough in many occasions. Minolta 24-105mm (D) seems to be a great choice, until you find the terrible light fall off and subpar IQ when aperture is wide open. Minolta 28-135mm is better than 24-105mm in terms of IQ, except that this old lens has disastrous flare control, and does not focus close enough. I tried Tamron 28-300mm Di LD. Its IQ also disappoints!

I finally tried this 24-135mm lens. I am very surprised that it works so well with the FF DSLR! The distortion is small at 24mm. The resolution is good even at wide-open aperture, and really excellent at f5.6~8.0! The color and contrast is vibrant. The performance on the corners is also more than acceptable on FF images. It is not digitally optimized, but flare is controlled very well. To tell the truth, just stopping its aperture down by 1/2~1EV, I already can't tell the differences taken by this lens and 24-70mm ZA in the same focal range!

The previous reviewer says that the focus ring rotates during focusing, which I do not think so. It protrudes out during zooming, but the front thread does not rotate during AF.

I wish this lens could be slightly smaller, and larger apertures (like f2.8-4.0). Maybe I am asking too much! Although it is not a perfect lens, this is the best lens you can get so far for travel or everyday use on Sony FF cameras!

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: ad_infinitum_oo   review date: January-14-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 50/1.7
Minolta 50/2.8 Macro
Minolta 35-105/3.5-4.5 original
Minolta 70-210/3.5-4.5

price paid:

$200 (like new)

positive:

Sharp
Contrast
Color
Build
Non-rotating filter during focusing

negative:

Zoom lock
Slow AF, especially in low-light
Large filter diameter = expensive filters
Rotating focus ring
Not as contrasty
No D Function

comment:

At first sight of this lens I was surprised at how bulky it was. My other lenses pale in comparison in terms of size and weight, and even heavier than the Minolta 35-105 metal version.

Now back to the review. I like the solid, heavy feel to it as it helps to balance out the body and lens for stabilization. The zoom ring is a bit stiff and heavily damped, so I wonder why the need for the zoom lock as it's not susceptible to zoom creep. The focusing ring rotates during focusing, so hand/finger placement is limited.

The sharpness easily surpasses all my other zoom lenses, but not as sharp as my primes, but not far behind. The colors are nice and vibrant, but not the Minolta colors I'm accustomed to. Photos are nicely saturated and rich, contrast is good too but adding some in PP wouldn't hurt. I was surprised at how nicely my pictures turned out, this has become my walk-around lens.

It hunts a lot in low-light conditions, but outdoors in good lighting conditions it's fairly fast, but not as fast the 35-105. It's my widest lens at the moment, so I end up having to use it for some indoor shooting, in which it doesn't showcase its best abilities. It shines outdoors and with its zoom range you probably won't have to switch between lenses. The bokeh isn't as nice and creamy as my lenses mentioned above. Also, the lack of D function is a drawback for flash users.

This is the most affordable wide-angle to mid-range lens, and the price to performance ratio should rank it at the top, in that regard. I wish it was a little faster, say 2.8-4.5 like its Sigma counterpart, then it'd be a near perfect lens for me. I'm probably gonna sell my 35-105 and 70-210 (been sitting on the sidelines) as this lens reduces the need for those two.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: razumovnet   review date: October-27-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Many other Minolta lenses. Sigma 28-105; Sigma 28-200 UC

positive:

VERY SHARP even wide open.

negative:

Slightly creeping zoom

comment:

The Lens is very sharp indeed. Compared to some other Minolta lenses (28-85; 28-105; 35-105; 35-70 f4) ... and this one is superior. Highly advised!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: der dickgg   review date: July-30-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70, Sigma 24-60EX, Sigma 70-200EX, Minolta 28-80Xi, Minolta 35-200Xi and all my other lenses....

price paid:

100 € second hand

positive:

Good range, even on APS-C. (like the old 35-200 Xi lens on FF or film).
Quick autofocus. Can be used on APS-C and FF (my future a800?). Solidly build

negative:

Not as fast as the Sigma 24-135. Slightly creeping zoom.

comment:

This lens was bought because I could not resist to offer € 100,- on the internet. The guy who sold the lens accepted the offer. It's since then used as the walkaround lens on my 2nd body, the Sony a100.(nowadays the a700) I will only sell it if I can get a Sigma 24-135 for the same money...

Update: has Sigma ever built an 24-135 with the same quality???

Update: Wowww... this lens still is very sharp on my new A77! (Forget the future FF 'cause I own an A77 now).

Update II: sold it because I now own a Sigma 24-135. (And, more important; maybe I do buy a FF once....).

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: krchrist   review date: May-18-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

220 USD New

positive:

Price, zoom range, sharpness, close focus

negative:

a little distortion wide

comment:

A great all around lens, especially in good light. i got some nice results across all focal lengths, nice colors (would have given 4.5). seems to be sharpest around f8. AF was fast in good light. a great looking lens, pretty compact given what it covers. build is good, very sturdy, no zoom creep. there is a small amount of distortion around 24-28mm, but not bad at all. a really nice lens, highly recommended.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: MrXpress   review date: May-11-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 18-70
Minolta 35-105
Tamron 28-75
Tamron 17-35
Minolta 100-300

price paid:

150 USD

positive:

-fantastic build quality
-very good range
-lens 'feels' and looks very good
-close focusing distance a plus
-inexpensive

negative:

-not very sharp, particularly at tele end
-sllloooowwwww AF
-zoom lock too flimsy

comment:

This lens is big and imposing, built like a tank, and covers a pretty decent range on APS-C, so what's not to like? Well, for starters, my copy (as always with Tamron lenses, sample variation may breed differing results) not only took ages to focus, but usually would focus on the wrong thing, and also showed a slight degree of backfocus. Sharpness was decent after resizing for the web, but pixel-peeping at full size showed it was one of my softest lenses.

I wasn't a big fan of the handling, either. The zoom ring is stiff, uneven, and clunky, and included is an unneeded zoom lock which tends to fall to the 'lock' position at the slightest nudge.

The closest thing I have to compare it to is the older Minolta 35-105/3.5-4.5 (the metal macro switch version). The Tamron has a better range, better build, and much better minimum focusing distance, but I found the Minolta to have superb color and to be much sharper across the zoom range, and to have much smoother handling.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Tome   review date: December-28-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-105
Minolta 75-300

price paid:

140 L

positive:

Impressiv size
Good allround lens
Good pictures 24-135 mm

negative:

Hunts a lot in low light!!
Size

comment:

I gave 3 in build rating since this lens hunts so desperatly in low light situations. I sold this lens and bought minolta 24-105 insted. What a difference! Minolta lens is smaller, lighter and faster in low light situations.
Don´t missunderstand me. This Tamron lens IS good. If you use it in normal light, it´s wonderful.
I am using it indoor during dance- and gymnastic competions. Using it in dance is like in sports, fast photographing. In dancecompetions they use quite low light. I call it "Bedroomlight". Quite impossible, so I changed from A100 to A700 as well. A100 had some focusing problems in my opinion. A700 is much better. :)

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: warpspasm   review date: December-08-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 55-200mm
Sony 18-70mm
Minolta 35-70mm
Minolta 50mm 1.7
Minolta 35-105mm

price paid:

130 USD (used)

positive:

Sharp
Build quality
Hefty
Looks great - Manly :)
Decent walkabout range

negative:

Hunts for focus in low light (especially at the long end)
Focus a bit slow
72mm filters

comment:

I have kind of a love/hate relationship with this lens. Most times, I take some photos and I'm really impressed by the sharpness. Other times...not so much. I haven't had the lens that long, so some of the problems with picture quality may very well have to do with me learning the lens. Outside in decent light and the lens really shines. Pictures are clear and sharp with nice contrast. The colors aren't nearly as warm and saturated as those from a Minolta lens, which sometimes is nice. You can always change that in PP. One problem that really drives me nuts however is the lens inability to consistently lock in focus in lower light situations. This is especially an issue when shooting at the longer focal lengths. I was trying to shoot across the width of an ice hockey rink and finally gave up and used manual focus. Fortunately, manual focus works great on this lens. In all fairness, because of the lighting and speed of the sport, taking game shots at local hockey rinks is very difficult for most non-pro lenses. That being said, my Minolta 35-105 does a pretty darn good job compared to any other lens I own. This Tammy however will prove to be a great walkabout lens, especially outside.
I know it's superficial, but I love the way the lens looks. It's a manly looking tool. The 72mm front might make filter users gripe, but boy, it sure looks cool! I personally like the weight and size of the lens, but some women and girly-men may find it to be a bit much. :)

I recommend this lens, if you can get it at a decent price. Just be prepared for the focusing issues in low light.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Derek   review date: November-03-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-85 f3.5-4.5
Minolta 75-300 New

price paid:

L99

positive:

Sharpness
Colour
Build
Range

negative:

Weight
72mm filters

comment:

Like Nabreu I bought this lens because of the price and to reduce number of lens changes. I paid L99 in mint condition, I think it was new 'old stock' as it looked completely untouched in its packaging complete with warranty papers, case, and hood. The box says 'for Minolta Autofocus' not Sony. It retails in the UK for about L400.

Performance wise the lens is excellent, very sharp at all focal lengths and apertures (except at 135mm where it needs to be stopped down to f8). Colour rendition is very pleasing and I have not seen any CA or PF.
No distortion anf flare is very well controlled with the lens hood.

Only drawback; another set of filters.

At this price, a steal.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: nabreu   review date: August-25-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 75-300
Minolta 135 2.8
Minolta 28-105
Minolta 50 1.7
SONY 18-70

price paid:

160 €

positive:

Very good color reproduction
Usefull range
Sharp stoped down
Zoom lock

negative:

A bit slow focusing
Fat but not big

comment:

Got this lens for 2 reasons.
The range and it´s price (it´s sold new for 450€ and i got it mint by 160€)
It really is a usefull range.
The lens is sharp stoped down especially at 24~90 mm
It dosen´t focus very fast, even on the A700.
It´s a bit fat and heavy but i don´t mind espeacilly because it´s Full Frame.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: wallyb   review date: May-24-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

-Minolta 28-135 AF
-Other dissimilar lenses

price paid:

275 USD Used

positive:

-EXTREMELY sharp from 24-~90mm
-Great colors, very rich but not over-saturated
-Fairly light for the range offered
-Zoom lock (wide angle)
-Somewhat compact (short)
-Focus ring isn't awful

negative:

-Softens up past 90mm, down to 4/5
-Not heavy, but pretty 'fat'
-Focus ring isn't excellent either
-A little flare and color balance problems in bright light

comment:

An excellent lens for the price and range. Cheaper than current prices for the Minolta 28-135 and easily as sharp, if not sharper at the wide end. Contrast is just as good, and color/saturation is only a little behind. Not the 2+lb. monster that the Minolta lens is, and there's no zoom creep at all, the lock is just an added bonus. Nice close focusing distance, great for everyday macro work. Good speed on the wide end, but it stops down pretty quickly and I wish it only went to f/4.5. Full frame is great, hope I can put it to use on digital soon ;)

Very stellar, 9.25/10. The only serious downfall is that it softens up considerably past 90mm, but stopping up to f/8 almost completely alleviates that.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: glass-hoper   review date: May-15-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

sony 17-70
minolta 50 1.7
prior N. life;)

price paid:

399new

positive:

sharp, sharp
minimal distortion and flare, sturdy build,
full frame

negative:

weight

comment:

very nice all around lens - bought it instead of the tammy 18-250 mainly for the full frame capability (wishful thinking...) and better lab image quality - although I am not really sure this makes a difference in the pictures that I take.

like most affordable lenses seems to be thriving on sunny days - not so hot when light is scarce, but not terrible either. (I couple it with the 50mm for the evening shots anyways)

I like very much the range: it gets you close but not very close as in taking impersonal pictures from the satellite - makes the candid pictures more exciting and pushes one to exercise more photographic muscles

with the hood on, flares only when taking shots directly against the sun - only saw flare in 2 pics out of 2000. minimal distortion at 24mm when shooting buildings on narrow streets...

AF is decent but lil noisy with good light and kind of bad in the dark but the good part is that the MF is very easy and fun to use!

minor thorns: the zoom lock can get to be annoying by self locking at random and there is a little bit of creep when not using it.

overall for me, great vacation lens! recommended!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: huanamarieke   review date: March-25-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 50 1.7
Minolta 24-105 D 3.5-4.5
Minolta 35-70 3.5-4.5
Sony kit lens
Cosina 100-300

price paid:

150 euro (used)

positive:

Built like a tank
Sharp
Range
Macro
Full frame

negative:

Dust
Not a D lens

comment:

This lens goes from wide angel to a decent zoom range, and also has some macro capabilities (1:3.3 at 40cm). Robust design that generates sharp images, certainly when stepped down a bit, although not as sharp as the Minolta 50mm of course. I believe that sharpness and build are comparable to its brother the Minolta 24-105D, but the Tamron has the advantage of some extra range and macro. This makes it an ideal walk-around in my opinion. The Minolta is however of D type and a little light sharper. My example has collected some inside dust particles over time, but I've heard that this is typical for this (type of) lens. Anyhow, it doesn't show on any of my pictures so that is nothing to worry about.
Overall, I can recommend this lens.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: Minolta Head   review date: December-31-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-105
Minolta 28-135

positive:

Build
Range
Sharpnes

negative:

Zoom Lock
Focusing

comment:

I bought this lens simply as a walk-around. I wanted a lttle extra on the wide side compared to the Konica-Minolta 28-135mm. My particular copy seems to have focusing issues when used on the Alpha 100. When it does focus it is still a little soft. The zoom lock is irritating, it is easily switched into the locked position when removing from a bag/case. The build quality is very good, this lens is not such a dust sucker as other zooms.

Overall as a walk-around this is a very useful lens for the money.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: fcasini   review date: June-17-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-105 3,5/4,5

price paid:

220€

positive:

Focal lenght, height and building and impressive 72mm filter

negative:

Slow focus

comment:

I am not a professionist photographer, so I cannot add a preview like all the other but I will try to do my best. Compared to Minolta 28-105 3,5/4,5 It seem to me that Minolta is overall a little better. I think that if it had a better and faster focus it should be a perfect lens for me. Focusing in low light condition or swithing between far and close subject causes lens moving, noise and time spent waiting for focusing.
I have sold the Minolta to buy this one, but, perhaps in the future I will go back, may be on "D" version of Minolta.
Sorry for bad english.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: gregodt   review date: May-30-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70

price paid:

290 euros (new)

positive:

great range
sharp
build quality

negative:

a bit heavy

comment:

An excellent walkaround lens with an useful zoom range.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: novak70   review date: January-12-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

CZ 24-70
CZ 16-80
k-m 18-70 (kit)
k-m 28-75 2.8

price paid:

200 Used

positive:

great range
full frame for future upgrade to sony's FF :)
good color - i like tamron colors way better than sigma's
sharp, sharp, sharp

negative:

significant back-focus when wide-open - i had to return it.
March 2010 - got it again and it is great!

comment:

March 2010 update:
I am happy to report that lens perform beautifully on FF.
As mentioned before, it is almost as sharp as 24-70 in the centre, but with way better edges, when closed a bit.
Not Minolta colors, but close to CZ colors.
CZ is overall better but only by little, and of course you pay for SSM, build and 2.8 if these are worth for you.


January 07:
very nice lens, beautifully built, great colors, great range... BUT:
back focus was pretty bad and you really had to close the apperture to get rid of it.
I've sent it to Tamron and they didn't do anything about it - they just suggested to buy the for APS-C designed lens.
It's a pitty because I really liked this lens!
Here is the only photo that I have on my flickr account (I had a lens for about a week) from this lens; take a look at the larger sizes:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogic/139268593/

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Mauricio   review date: January-07-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

330 GBP new

positive:

Sharpness and flexibility for landscapes, cityscapes and 'on the go' CU's

negative:

Weight

comment:

On the A100 range is an impressive 35 - 200mm. It is sturdy, well built and heavy. Zooming and manual focus are as smooth now as when bought six years ago. Focus speed is not rapid - at full length it hunts when trying to focus on closer objects and it is noisy. This lens was originally used as a jack-of-all-trades on my Dynax 7. Now, it is even better. The AS/SSS allows the smaller format/greater range to be fully exploited - the all time super walkabout. It gives crisp shots. Warts and all this for me is a Tamron Classic - I would not like to be without it.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: cloud8   review date: September-25-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

minolta 50mm 1.7, tamron 28-75 2.8

price paid:

340 USD new

positive:

sharp
good range
petal shaped hood
internal focusing
zoom lock
wide focus ring
decent build quality

negative:

no digital coatings
a bit heavy
loud and slow focusing
manual focusing feels unpleasant
hood position is fixed, can't rotate
hunts a bit at its long end
f/2.8-4.5 would be much better

comment:

I bought it because so many people were surprised by its excellent performance for the price. Having used it for a year, I agree. My complaints are mostly nitpicking. Sharpness on my copy is remarkably consistent from center to corner. Good wide open, it gets a bit sharper stopped down until just before f/8, and then it's mostly the same until it gets sloppy around f/14 or so. It seems consistent even at 135mm.
Not quite up to the 28-75mm 2.8, but I only compared them briefly. I think it performs better in some situations than others. Maybe it's the lack of digital coatings. It's not as contrasty as I would like, but that's probably a good thing; it'll capture more details this way.
Other than getting the digital treatment and a few more mm at the wide end, I wouldn't ask for anything more at this price point.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Troy Carter   review date: August-29-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-135 f4-4.5
Tamron 28-75 f2.8

positive:

- Great all around zoom range
- Good Macro feature if you don't have a dedicated macro lens
- Somewhat compact for the zoom range
- zoom lock is nice

negative:

- not as sharp as my Minolta 28-135 or Tam 28-75 2.8

comment:

Overall this is a great little lens for a walk around utility zoom. It’s just wide enough to be more useful than the typical 28-xx zooms and the macro function helps to make it a nice do-it-all lens. Currently I have this lens, the Minolta 28-135 f4-4.5 and a Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I need to get rid of either this lens or the Minolta 28-135 and it really is a tough call. This lens will focus MUCH closer, is a little more compact, has slightly more wide angle and has the nifty zoom lock on it. The Minolta 28-135 is however sharper than this lens, but only by a small margin when viewed at 100%. However the Minolta lens is also a little faster and a great lens in it’s own way. I rated it at 3.5 for sharpness only because my 28-135 is not as sharp as my Tam 28-75, and this lens is in third place of the three. This lens does feel pretty good when shooting and seems to have good construction for a zoom of this type. It has good weight to it and produces very nice shots in a good amount of situations. Some day I’ll decide which to keep…

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: hotwire   review date: August-29-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

Zoom lock for when stored in bag
Awesome zoom range

negative:

Loses wide abilities on digital bodies with crop factor (not lens' fault)

comment:

Originally bought with my Maxxum 9, since I didn't like the feel of the minolta lenses at the time with the Vertical Grip. Formely retained even on my Alpha 100 as my walkaround lens. Great zoom range, and dimension of this lens are great.

As my walkaround lens, however, it has been replaced by my KM 28-75/2.8 (D).

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: mrtaufik   review date: July-01-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF 35-200 4.5-6.3 Zoom xi;

positive:

- Build quality
- Colors
- Very usable zoom range

negative:

- Hunt a lot in low light

comment:

I love this lens for its zoom coverage. If I go for travelling, I just bought only this lens.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Janvb   review date: June-29-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

28-75 / 100 -300 APO / primes

positive:

good range, pretty sharp for a zoom

negative:

AF hunting

comment:

My first decent zoom, after using the 28-80 kit lens I thought this can't be the reason for using SLR camera's, so I bought this lens to replace it and suddenly my pictures looked a lot better from a sharpness/colours perspective. Sold it because when I bought my 7D it became a 36-200

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: gitarzysta   review date: May-06-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 24-135mm, kit lens

positive:

- AF is fast enough (but kit lens' AF is much much faster)
- build quality
- range
- results are pleasing but see below

negative:

- very expensive
- heavy
- AF could be faster
- sharpness is ok in real world but cheaper Sigma 24-135mm beats this Tamron (and remember that Sigma is a faster lens, too)
- hard to rotate the zoom ring
- not D lens
- not digital only lens: 72 mm filters required

comment:

As with my Sigma 24-135mm review flare and ditortions were not tested so my rating is just 3: may be less, may be more. But I just judged and tested real picture quality: did I like the results or not. And well, surprise: Sigma 24-135 performs better! Tamron's AF is faster, build quality better but picture quality, even wide open, is not on pair with Sigma, it is on pair if not worse than kit lens (!!!) Constant BF issues. On test charts the gap between Tamron and Sigma is very visible, in real world not much but it's hard to forget that Sigma, being faster and cheaper, still can deliver better quality

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: jarenas   review date: April-02-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 28-75 F2.8 Tokina 100-300 F4

positive:

Zoom range, locking mechanism, 72mm filter, quality feel, macro capability

negative:

72mm filter, bit heavy, soft at wider aperture, noisy when AF, hunts in low light

comment:

This was my first lens because I couldn't afford all the lenses on my list so I figured i'd start w/ my walk around lens. Overall I have no complaints. I have won acouple of awards w/ this lens. I wish it was a bit sharper at wider apertures and it is a bit heavy by itself. Also, it hunts in low light situations. It is not "D" compatible and figure if it was it would be more compatible w/ the 7D

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Mustang   review date: February-24-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

none

positive:

Fast, accurate focus, performs well in low light. Has enough weight. Barrel can be locked.

negative:

Barrel clicks-clacks a little when mounted, though no reduction in performance.

comment:

Features are excellent. Range covers 80 per cent of all shots I take. Fast, responsive, accurate. Strongly built, though the "swing" of the barrel is a little clic-clacking when mounted. Good, solid build otherwise. Enough weight. Lenses that are too light are just blown away by the solidity of this piece of glass.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: zpafonso   review date: February-20-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF 24-105mm D

positive:

Build quality
Sharpness, color and contrast
Zoom range

negative:

A little bit heavy
Not a D lens

comment:

An excellent walkaround lens with an useful zoom range. Feels very solid and well built, and the image quality is excellent. Much better than the Minolta 24-105 D in my opinion, specially because of its build quality.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: dbarfoot   review date: January-15-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 18-70 kit
Sigma 18-50 F2.8
Minolta 100-300 APO

positive:

Sharp
Zoom Range

negative:

comment:

I bought this lens for its versatile zoom range. It has lived up to expectations. The sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a little sharper, but not much.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Lucas   review date: January-13-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

Excellent optics, colors and contrast. Sharpness is not a 5 because I only give 5 for macros!
Quasi-macro capability
Very well built.
Low price for the quality and range.

negative:

Feel some "plasticity" when zooming, but not so bad.
AF could be faster.
A bit heavy.

comment:

This is my walkaround lens, I use it 80% of the time. Added to the 7D ( with battery grip ) it becomes an excellent photo system, but really heavy! I usually exchange it only when needing a wider shot ( use Tokina 17/f3.5 ) or macro ( Sigma 50/2,8 ). Also, for long telephoto I use a KM 100-300 APO and KM 500/f8 mirror, but that is very seldom.
I believe I will only use another lens for that range when a decent 18-125 comes along ( not the current Sigma! )
I definitely recommend this lens!!