>Let me second this - I have had the SP 2.8/35-105 Tamron, first I >thought it would be an ideal portrait/normal lens for me. However, I >am glad I finally managed to sell it, even if at a slight loss. It was >a really bad lens at the wide end, with enough unsharpness to make >focusing hard! The long end was better, but still nothing exactly >spectacular. Down by f/8 it was a fine lens, but mine developed some >wobbling or what so when I compared slides of time when I first bought >it with slides taken now I could see a visible difference in >sharpness (then - better, now - worse). Also, I have heard this lens >is suspectible to sticky aperture.
Mine had serious wobbling too (made it difficult to zoom). I then discovered everything inside were plactic (deceived by it's metal body). What a rip off! >Now, I would have had get the SMC A 3.5/35-105 over it any time, even >though it's 2/3 stops slower. I am really glad I got rid of that >Tamron, as the sharpness of my pics improved a lot by then :) The SMC PENTAX-A 35-105/3.5 is way sharper at wide open. Unfortunately, I had 2 and both had grease leaking problem (behind the front element). Any one had the same problem? regards, Alan Chan _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
