Patrick Genovese wrote: >Hi what's the general consensus regarding the quality/performance of > >Tamron's 17-35 or as it is officially known: > > SPAF17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD Asph (IF) > >http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/17_35mm.asp > >how would it compare to say a Pentax 20-35 f/4 >or a pentax fa20 f/2.8 > >I know that's not comparing like with like but the thing is I was >about to buy a 20 2.8 and got thinking whether the Tamron would be a >wiser choice ?
I have the Tamron in question and use it fairly frequently on the ist-D. IMHO it's an outstanding optic. Perhaps I could grumble about the f/4 aperture at the long end, but that's a quibble given the price and size/weight. I believe it's also the "Pentaxiest" third party lens I've ever used. That is, its overall "look" is closer to Pentax glass in terms of sharpness, bokeh and color. Difficult to put my finger on or put into words (obviously) but something I like. I've don't have the Pentax 20-35 to compare to. I do have the Pentax A20/2.8 and think it's really in a different league with regards to sharpness and contrast, though I've never done a formal comparison. I find that the 20mm prime and 17-35 zoom are very different in the way I use them. I almost always go with primes when I'm shooting for myself but on a paying job the zoom goes into my camera bag because of its versatility. In other words: The Pentax is better at 20mm but the Tamron is better at all other focal lengths :) You won't be disappointed with either lens, but which is most useful to you will depend on your shooting habits. Apples and oranges.
