Question:
and www.photographyreview.com for user reviews and ratings
Response:
and www.photographyreview.com for user reviews and ratings
Heaven help us if we even *start* to believe that photographyREVIEW.com is a reliable source of fair and reasonably objective reviews and ratings. I looked at this site today in order to help me list the strengths and weaknesses of an intended purchase, and I was shocked at what I read. It was patently obvious that some of the reviews had been placed by people who did not own this item and were doing everything they could to criticise it. Overall, it had received high ratings from users (who knew the item well and seemed genuine) and very low ratings from these other "reviewers". It had become obvious to satisfied owners of this item that people were posting reviews with the sole purpose of lowering its overall rating. So the owners were now deliberately posting reviews with 5 out of 5 ratings to balance the reduction in overall ratings that had been achieved by these self-appointed "critics". What is not surprising is that people should attempt to sway results in this way. Brand wars are fierce and some "brand evangelists" will do everything practicable to boost "their" brand at the expense of another, even by lying. But what is surprising is that the owner of the site does **NOTHING** about it. When reviewers state in their reviews that they are giving a high rating to counter previous, suspicious, negative ratings, and those reviews are published without question (as are the critical "reviews" posted by people who clearly know very little about what they are "reviewing"), it begs the question: Just how much quality control is in place here? Answer = NIL ? A site where people can post reviews can be a great asset. But if the posting is unrestricted, malicious individuals can easily make a nonsense of the site and its reviews and ratings. And that is what appears already to have happened at PhotoREVIEW.com. Anyone who relies on this site for fair and reasonably objective equipment reviews and ratings runs the risk of being misled, and badly disappointed. Of course the main priority of the owners of the site is not to provide objective reviews, but to maximise their income. It’s interesting to note that the site is sponsored by companies that sell the items that are being reviewed. What price objectivity? — Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Response:
Forget if I’ve already posted, but here’s one review covering a range of the super-wide zooms out there today, including the Vivitar and Tokina, and more. No, the Vivitar isn’t a Tokina, but it is also sold as a Cosina. http://www.jafaphotography.com/wide.htm
Response:
Forget if I’ve already posted, but here’s one review covering a range of the super-wide zooms out there today, including the Vivitar and Tokina, and more. No, the Vivitar isn’t a Tokina, but it is also sold as a Cosina. http://www.jafaphotography.com/wide.htm
Thanks for the site. I always prefer somebody who has direct experience and has tested a variety of lens to hyperbole. Maybe that is a large sample to sample variation, which would be especially true of a lens that costs less than $150, who would have time to test each one. But my Vivitar S1 19-35 could replace my primes easily if I shot only at f8. Warren Kato
Response:
Then your knowledge is wrong. There was an earlier Tokina 19-35 that was a rebadged Vivitar, but the current Tokina 19-35 and intermediate 20-35 are both 100% Tokina designs. Tony is 100% correct. Both the 19-35 and 20-35 are Tokina designs from the bottom up. There is no comparison between the current 19-35 and the version of 2 or 3 years ago
Thanks! I knew there would be confusion just as soon as Tokina announced their new 19-35mm. The earlier Tokina (rebadged Vivitar) was an appalling optic. Unfortunately people’s memories are long enough to associate "Tokina 19-35mm" with one of the worst lenses Tokina ever sold. What’s also confusing is the "19-35mm" focal length range, because I am informed that the optics are identical to its 20-35mm predecessor. I suppose 19mm makes it sound wider than 20mm, just like $999.97 is a *lot* less than $1000.00. Many lenses are well off their advertised focal lengths when tested. Also, focal lengths can be misdeclared for marketing reasons; the Nikon Series E 36-72mm f/3.5 zoom was a 35-70mm lens. It was called a 36-72mm to differentiate it from the larger, heavier and far more expensive 35-70mm f/3.5 (constant) AIS Nikkor. — Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Response:
But beware used Tokina 19-35s from two or three years ago, because they were just rebadged Vivitars. Yuk! Actually the Vivitar was a rebadged Tokina. — Kirk Experience is the best teacher… But her pop quizzes can be mighty tough.
There is some confusion here, I believe. Tokina currently markets a 19-35 mm lens that is very similar to their discontinued 20-35 mm variable aperture lens. (They also market a fixed aperture lens in this range which is more expensive). Tokina did market a 19-35 mm lens side by side with their two 20-35 mm offerings, and that 19-35 lens was really a rebadged Cosina/Vivitar. I have no reason to believe that the Tokina variant was any better (or worse) than the Cosina. The Cosina/Vivitar/Soligor 19-35 generally get less favorable reviews than the new Tokina 19-35. — Anders Svensson
Response:
Then your knowledge is wrong. There was an earlier Tokina 19-35 that was a rebadged Vivitar, but the current Tokina 19-35 and intermediate 20-35 are both 100% Tokina designs.
Tony is 100% correct. Both the 19-35 and 20-35 are Tokina designs from the bottom up. There is no comparison between the current 19-35 and the version of 2 or 3 years ago John
Response:
I was extremely dissapointed with this lens given its decent reviews. I can only guess that reviewers didn’t actually take pictures outside in the sunlight.
ROTFL!!! — Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Response:
<< Well that’s it for the cheapest option, what might be a good alternative? Try the Tokina 19-35. Still inexpensive, but rated much better. John
To the best of my knowledge Vivitar 19-35 and Tokina 19-35 is the same lens.
Response:
But beware used Tokina 19-35s from two or three years ago, because they were just rebadged Vivitars. Yuk! Actually the Vivitar was a rebadged Tokina.
Absolutely, 100%, completely WRONG! — Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Response:
<< Well that’s it for the cheapest option, what might be a good alternative? Try the Tokina 19-35. Still inexpensive, but rated much better. John To the best of my knowledge Vivitar 19-35 and Tokina 19-35 is the same lens.
Then your knowledge is wrong. There was an earlier Tokina 19-35 that was a rebadged Vivitar, but the current Tokina 19-35 and intermediate 20-35 are both 100% Tokina designs. — Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Response:
But beware used Tokina 19-35s from two or three years ago, because they were just rebadged Vivitars. Yuk!
Actually the Vivitar was a rebadged Tokina. — Kirk Experience is the best teacher… But her pop quizzes can be mighty tough.
Response:
I was extremely dissapointed with this lens given its decent reviews. I can only guess that reviewers didn’t actually take pictures outside in the sunlight. http://www.photographyreview.com/reviews/35mm_zoom_lenses/product_5916.a sp I bought the Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4. Yes, it is more expensive, but it is a much better lens. Danny I was checking out camerareview.com for a super wide angles and came across some good reviews for this was one and I was amazed at the price $150 at B&H. Of course, at this price I’m not expecting the world but I would like to know if anyone has had any positive experiences with this lens. It would be mostly for me to play and experiment with since I’ve never used anything less than 28mm Thanks! "This is everybody’s fault but mine"
– http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Bungalow/9795/index.html video and digicam info
Response:
May God help anyone who believes that this lens bears the slightest resemblance to the excellent optics that bore the "Vivitar Series 1" branding in the 1970s and 1980s. It doesn’t. — Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
well, the places I look, 70s and 80s lenses are the only type im likely to find. too poor to get new lenses, see? anyway, is the lens mr. jones refers to an AF? in which case, wouldnt want it anyway.
Response:
<< Well that’s it for the cheapest option, what might be a good alternative? Try the Tokina 19-35. Still inexpensive, but rated much better. John
Response:
<< Well that’s it for the cheapest option, what might be a good alternative? Try the Tokina 19-35. Still inexpensive, but rated much better.
But beware used Tokina 19-35s from two or three years ago, because they were just rebadged Vivitars. Yuk! The latest Tokina 19-35 and the Tokina 20-35 that came in between are both very good value lenses. Despite the difference in quoted focal length I believe the optics are identical. — Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Response:
Well that’s it for the cheapest option, what might be a good alternative? (I allready have: Canon EOS 30 + 28-105) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I had one for a few days and sent it back – unsharp at any focal length or aperture. I testes with colour negative film, and the 4×6s looked awful, so I didn’t even bother with getting larger prints. — Chapel Hill artist and photo restorer http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony (Java site) And a NEW links site http://tspadaro.homestead.com/TheLinks.html
Response:
I had one for a few days and sent it back – unsharp at any focal length or aperture. I testes with colour negative film, and the 4×6s looked awful, so I didn’t even bother with getting larger prints.
Did you examine the negatives or just the prints? Perhaps the lab had a bad day.
Response:
Did you examine the negatives or just the prints? Perhaps the lab had a bad day.
Then they had a bad day only with the prints made from the 19-35. I always test going back and forth between a lens I know and the one I don’t. In this case I used my 24, a Sigma I’ve had for at least 5 years.. — Chapel Hill artist and photo restorer http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony (Java site) And a NEW links site http://tspadaro.homestead.com/TheLinks.html
Response:
Low in contrast. Soft in the corners until f11 at all focal lengths. Fairly high levels of barrel distortion that improves slightly with longer focal lengths. About what you would expect from a lens in this price range. — Fred Maplewood Photography
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was checking out camerareview.com for a super wide angles and came across some good reviews for this was one and I was amazed at the price $150 at B&H. Of course, at this price I’m not expecting the world but I would like to know if anyone has had any positive experiences with this lens. It would be mostly for me to play and experiment with since I’ve never used anything less than 28mm Thanks! "This is everybody’s fault but mine"
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was checking out camerareview.com for a super wide angles and came across some good reviews for this was one and I was amazed at the price $150 at B&H. Of course, at this price I’m not expecting the world but I would like to know if anyone has had any positive experiences with this lens. It would be mostly for me to play and experiment with since I’ve never used anything less than 28mm I’ve no experience, but I have read some damned good things about Series 1s in various books, and have long wanted something wider that 28mm for less than
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.