20 mm that can zoom to 40 quicker than changing lenses. similar price to 20mm. Is awesome at 20mm for a non rangefinder wide if you manage to avoid flare. It may perform like a heavy prime 20 with too many elements to resist flare. I have the lens for Canon and Nikon. Nikon version compatible with Nikon F; not a Gtarded gelded lens. I have not scanned negatives to compare so on film it might perform better and match MTF tests (some negstive results may be sensor reflectivety or, may be sensor angle limitations rather than the lens's MTF) it has low distortion and chromatic aberration. May perform better at 40 at closer focus. Durable; might survive self defense use.

it weighs more than a 20mm prime. It is prone to flare, at least on digital and can even pick up reflections of the surrounding material between the filter ring and the glass 180 flare angle. I don't know if the 40 mm isn't designed for digital sensor angels, or just to prone to flare. Many times I can tell the difference zoomed to 40, compared to Nikon and Canon 50mm. It has not replaced my 35mm F2. Flare can affect the lens so much that it either lower the contrast significantly, or effects auto focus. Flare can cause one picture to be disappointingly soft while the next picture is impressively sharp, and resolves the individual threads on clothing. The minimum focus distance is greater than most wide primes.

Compact very good contrast, not great. Typical Tamron on the cooler side of things..... (not a strength if you don't know or expect this going in). Sharpness is very good, not great. Compact well made.

I find it absurd to compare sharpness and contrast head to head with a 20mm prime like the Nikkor's and it's worth noting because this is a 20-40mm and generally speaking the 20mm range is why most would consider getting one and the range most would use if they did own one. I believe it suffers from "hype" and the comparisons to the Nikkor and Tokina 20-35mm F/2.8's has a hole when it's stated as "better than".........that being market value.......explanation as to why the other 2 maintain such a higher value, almost 50% higher typically and 100% often enough.... It's a good lens and not a great lens, market value tends to make that apparent. The excuse that it was over-looked somehow justifies this is not logical because there's far too much hype out there contending the same things yet the value keeps declining on these.......???

Look at the actual prices lenses in this range sell for and you will see that the Tamron's can barely meet $200 in Oct 2013..... The Nikkor and Tokina versions in 20-35mm are $300 to $400. Why is that? If there was a chart for the market value and it's trends, this lens would be on a constant decline.
It's not over-looked, they sold, they are still out there.

Similar Products Used:

Nikkor 20mm 2.8, Sigma 16mm, Nikkor 28-70mm, Sigma 15-30mm, Tamron Adpatall-2 24-48mm (superior to the Tamron 20-40mm optically and a lens in reality that really is "over-looked")

sharpness, contrast, good build quality

have to use lens hood to keep the flare low

This is a outstanding lens indeed, capable of very sharp and contrasty pictures. It is clearly better than the Nikon 20-35mm that I once owned. I was never happy with the Nikkor. Perhaps I had a bad sample. But this Tamron just beats the Nikon zoom in everyway with noticably sharper images. Also, the lens is sharper than Tokina 17mm, which actully got good reviews on Photozone and by German Color Foto magazine. Moreover, it is relatively compact and light.

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 20-35mm, Nikon 25-50mm, Nikon 20mm, Minolta 24-50mm, Minolta 24-35mm, Tokina 17mm. The Tamron is better than all of them.

Fast focus, sharp in the mid ranges.

Some flare at 20mm, alittle soft in focus at maximum zoom. Can show some colour shift to the warm end of the spectrum. Very correctable.

Fast respondse, alittle noisy in autofocus. There is noticable flare at the low end (20mm), but it is managable. Some distortion at wide angle, but again correctable. Does well with portraits, but be wary that it tends to shift to the warm side in natural light.
Very sharp and crisp at the mid ranges, but focus is alittle soft at the high end.
If you can't swing the price of the your camera manufacturer's glass, this is one of the first places to look.
An excellent choice as a second wide angle lens.

Customer Service

Not needed. Purchased used.

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 18-55-3.5
Tamron 28-80 3.5

Very well built. Superb optics.

None.

A superb lens. Very sharp. Great color & contrast. I even procured a second one for the girlfriend. I highly recommend it. There are two versions. Both are identical optically. In 'photo.do" tests, it even beat out some primes in it's focal range.

Quiet Light Photography

Customer Service

Not needed.

Well built with great glass,

None that I can think of.

I have the first and second version of this lens. It's a "very" good lens. Very sharp, great colors, etc.The auto-focus is fast anmd accurate. When bench tested, it did better than the Nikon and Canon equivalents, and even better than some primes in it's focal length. I highly recommend it.

Quiet Light Photography

Customer Service

Not needed. But whenever I contact Tamron with a lens question, they are quick to respond.

Very sharp. Good build quality. No chromatic aberration.

FLARE. Noisy auto focus.

I have the Canon mount version of this lens. I wanted something that wasn't too expensive yet very sharp. I almost bought a used 20-35 2.8L but was put off by some of the negative comments and mixed reviews. After reading the reviews on this lens and the fact I decided to take a chance on it. The fact that it was almost $200.00 cheaper new than the used Canon was a nice plus. I am very happy with this lens. The build quality is very good and feels solid in your hands. It has a metal mount though most of the lens is a well finished plastic. As with all wide angle lenses the filter size is large and will cost extra dollars for them. This is because it requires a large filter to prevent vignetting caused by a filter. However, I still recommend a thin filter for this lens. On a DSLR it is only barely wide enough but it does the job. It is very sharp and even the edges are good by f4 at all focal lenghts. It is quick focusing but noisy and is not prone to hunting under normal lighting. Also, it is fast with 2.8 being the maximum aperture out to about 28mm retaining its speed through most of the focal length. There is some barrel distortion at 20mm but clears up by 28mm. Since most lenses at this length are prone to distortion this isn't much of a problem (and this lens is better than most). Vignetting is present at 20mm as well but is gone by f5.6. At 40mm it was not noticeable. I also took some "test" shots of the sky and dark edges (for a worst case scenario) and chromatic aberration was virtually non-existent at any focal length. There is a slight tendency towards the warm side but not objectionable in the way it renders color. If you don't like it though just change the white balance. Just as an aside, most probably wouldn't notice this unless two pics of the same scene with different lenses are used. Lastly, flare is bad. You will have to avoid shooting into any bright light sources and the included hood isn't much help. If you can find one of these lenses BUY IT.

Customer Service

Not needed

Similar Products Used:

Canon 28-80mm L Canon 18-55mm kit

Colors and contrast, sturdy build, smooth operation, good focal range, acceptable sharpness in low light at 2.7-3.5, very good indoor wide angle lens.

Some flare when directed into the sun; minimal focus distance longer than later models.

Purchased for use on a Canon 10D, and use it mostly in lowlight indoors. Its colors and contrast are very good. Its sharpness at 2.7-3.5 is acceptable, and responds well to photoshop sharpening. It performs similarly to my Tamron 28-75, but not quite as well in sharpness. Sturdy build, smooth functioning. The focal range works very well for me in photographing individuals and small groups indoors with some context. Distortion is fairly well controlled. A little vignetting around the edges at time, but not particularly noticeable. The extra light from the f.3.5 (versus the later model's f.4) comes in handy. On the other hand, it has a more limited ability to focus up close. There is a flare issue. Great buy if you can get it used at a reasonable price.

Similar Products Used:

tamron 28-75 canon 24/2.8 canon 50/1.4 and 1.8 canon 35/2.0

Build, optics, mechanics, handling. -

Lens hood is difficult to mountremove

I purchased this lens new on Ebay. I have taken two rolls of Kodak 400 UC film doing architectural interior shots of my church.(a rather large space with many different verticals in the space. This lens is very sharp and contrasty. The edges are sharp and since I lined up the verticals and horizontals with care,very little to NO distortion was evident. I am pleased! just today, I put a Nikkor 18-35 ED lens on a Nikon D70. Nice lens but the Tamron is far more sturdy. The Tamron has outstanding mechanics with the zoom and focus rings giving just the right amount of resistance. Nicer than the Nikkor zoom. The click stops fpr the apertures is perfect and easy to access. Overall, an excellent lens. There was ample opportunity for flare but none was exhibited. I took some photos outdoors of the exterior. The colors were spot on and the exposures perfect. A very usable 2.7-3.5 lens in low light.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

Nikkor AF 20 mm 2.8, 28-105, Tamron 24-135.

-Build quality (above consumer standards) -Optics -Colours -fast 2.7-3.3 is quite fast compared to 3.5-4.5 -Always liked Tamron's manual focus ring smoothness

-not so fast max aperture (see..there is always room for new criteria) -slower AF compared to Canon's USM (doesn't bother me really)

Had the chance to use this lens by a Tamron resellers advice. Having read reviews about many users preferring original brands lenses I took the same direction and sold mine for a Canon 20-35mm USM. And after first shots I regretted my decision of choice of 20-35mm canon. Don't get it wrong please.. Canon wide angle zoom was convenient with usm and had very good image quality. But it was a fact for me I did not need USM that much and tamron was a faster lens which gave me (very little distinction between) better sharpness and color for its entire focal range. Now that I am an a Fujifilm S2 Pro I am looking out for a nice ultra wide zoom. 18-35 Nikkor, 17-35 Sigma? See I really need that tiny 2mm end for that darn 1.5 magnification....

Customer Service

Haven't needed it...

Similar Products Used:

Canon 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 USM