Anyne have this lens?
http://tamron.com/lenses/prod/19_35mm_lg.asp

I'm thinking of buying it but just wanted to see if anyone here has tried it.
I've found a place that sells them for $179 + $9.95 S&H
http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/home.asp

I've never used any Tamron lenses before so that's why I'm posting this :)

Well I have all Tamron lenses except for a 50mm fixed.

I have the 17-35 Di 2.8-4 wide angle though not the 19-35. If it is the same quality of the 75-300 LD F4-5.6 (which is in a similar price range) I would say that the images will be on the soft side and if you shoot high contrast images you will get purple fringing.

I do not have this problem with either my 17-35 F2.8-4 or the 28-75 F2.8, they are both very nice, very sharp and very (relatively) expensive.

Originally I was looking at the 19-35mm and one of the professional photographers I know said to get a wide lens like a 17mm (even a fixed) because a 27mm (17x1.6) focal length is still not super wide. Not sure if I totally agree but after seeing the quality of 75-300, I'm glad I got the 17-35 2.8-4 while I had the money.

That said I don't know if a cheap canon or sigma lens would have better characteristics than the 19-35 or not, it's hard to say without trying it.
When you read reviews they are all over the place; This is great, This Sucks.

Have you tried checking the Rob Galbraith forums? They usually have quality reviews/opinions there

I was also thinking that sharpness on a wide angle is more important than on tele lenses as you are cramming more scene in. Where on a telephoto you may only loose fine detail on a wide angle you could be loosing streets or houses.

I've looked through Rob Galbraith forums but I couldn't find anything there.
I've seen some reviews on other sites but like you said it's all "This is great, This Sucks".

I don't need anything super special with wide angle lens. I just need one since I don't own one currently. I've had Canon 28mm f/2.8 (multiple times) but never really used it all that much and I couldn't tell much difference between that and other zoom lens I had at the time.

I guess I should save up some money instead and get something much better :)

Yeah I don't use it that often. With my old camera, a Pentax Spotmatic, I had a 28mm lens that I hardly ever used. I must say though with the digital I have used it more than I would have thought so I'm happy I have it.

I borrowed money to get my computer and camera so it was either get the wide angle now or not get it at all, or at least for 4 years from now by which time I would probably want another body. I wish I could have afforded a better telephoto but for something better I was looking at over $1000 compared to a couple hundred buck for the one I got.

I'd really love to have a 400mm IS but unless my wife and I win the lottery that is not going to happen. I really don't know how all these people can afford getting these 1D mk II cameras with L Series lenses. Most professional photographers I know (even the sucessful ones) are using fairly old equipment, half of them aren't even using digital and the others are using like Fuji S2 Pros and older Nikon bodies, which granted at the time they paid tones of money for them but they are now quite behind the times.

My next lens purchase if I can ever afford it would be something like the Tamron 180mm F3.5 macro and maybe add a 1.5x or 2X teleconverter

I know what you mean with all these people buying expensive equipment.
I know this local guy that as far I know doesn't even have a job other than some freelance stuff for a local news paper.
As soon a Mk II came out he had it in his hands!

I must start selling crack and get some cheeze that way :cheeky: