No, it's not, but I'm in the minority on this list. There are only two others here that I know of who feel similarly.
The issue about the hood can be easily corrected, and that may help with the flare issues I encountered. Paul's pic is not a particularly good example (IMO) of a flare-producing situation. I suspect you'll find the lens to be acceptable .... but I can't gush over it as some others have. Shel > [Original Message] > From: John Whittingham > Not exactly a glowing recommendation Shel. The trouble is it's difficult to > find a lens in this FL range that doesn't have some kind of issues with it, > be it Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc, prime or zoom. Now if > the Tamron 17-35 XR Di were a bit wider at the short end I might well be > tempted. > > John > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > From: "Shel Belinkoff" > > While I liked the lens, and found it to be a nice "walking around" > > lens, I wasn't quite satisfied with it for critical work and fine > > details. The standard hood is, imo, inadequate, and the lens is > > prone to flare and purple fringing in some situations. I actually > > used two samples, one briefly and another for more than a month, got > > the fringing with both of them. I didn't like the way it > > "tromboned" but soon learned to accept that aspect of it. Overall, > > I think it's fine for most work, but it would not be my first > > choice for a lot of photography that I do. I'd consider buying one > > if the price were right now that I know its limitations, strengths, and > > weaknesses. On a scale of 100 I'd rate it about 80. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
