This lens was specially purchased by me for this article 'Mirror Full Frame, 28 MP for 240 cu'
Review Cosina MC 19-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5
The lens was also produced under other brands - Tamron, Soligor, Phoenix, Vivitar, etc. in two colors - black and silver. This review presents a lens with a metallic (white, silver) body color for Nikon cameras.
Side view Cosina MC 19-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5
Cosina MC 19-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5 is made in Japan, the build quality is poor, the focus and zoom rings have a slight backlash, and the lens itself is quite light due to the large amount of plastic in the body (about 300 g). The mount is metallic, and the focus and zoom ring is rubberized. When I shot with Cosina MC 19-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5 on my cameras Nikon D80 и Nikon D700, the cameras recognized it as a lens with a focal length of 20 to 34mm. I already thought that there is no trace of 19mm focal length, and the number '19' itself is a kind of 'bait'. But in reality, the lens has a real 19mm focal length. I found this out when I compared pictures with Cosina MC 19-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5 and Mir-20M 3,5 / 20 taken from a tripod while focusing the lenses to infinity. Most likely Cosina MC 19-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5 has problems with the contact chip, which is not uncommon for cheap lenses from third-party manufacturers.
Cosina MC 19-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5
A good feature of the lens is very fast auto focus... It's just a pity that the front lens rotates when focusing. For a wide-angle lens, this is a very undesirable moment, since wide-angle lenses are often used for shooting landscapes, where the use of different light filters is in great demand. The focus ring rotates approximately 45 degrees. The MDF is 50 cm. When zooming, the front lens does not rotate, and the lens trunk moves in a wave-like fashion - first it lengthens and then shortens.
Multi-Enlightenment Cosina MC 19-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5
To control the value aperture from the camera, you need to install the ring aperture to F / 22 and fix it with a special button (for more details, see the section on Non-G Lenses). Autofocus with the Cosina MC 19-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5 lens is only available when used on cameras with built-in motor focusing. A list of cameras that support auto focus with AF lenses can be found in the 'Auto focus on Nikon cameras'. Also, this lens does not transmit the focusing distance to the camera and is an analog Non-d lens.
Film:
At the end experiment I had to sell this lens, it so happened that I have very few examples of photos from digital cameras:
Original super wide angle lenses:
Nikkor F for SLR cameras:
- Nikon 14 mm 1: 2.8D AF
- Nikon 16 mm 1: 2.8D Fisheye AF
- Nikon 18 mm 1: 2.8D AF
- Nikon 20 mm 1:2.8 AF
- Nikon 20 mm 1: 2.8D AF
- Nikon 20 mm 1: 1.8G N AF S
- Nikon 8-15 mm 1: 3.5-4.5E Fisheye AF S
- Nikon 14-24 mm 1: 2.8G N AF S
- Nikon 16-35 mm 1: 4G VR N AF S
- Nikon 17-35 mm 1: 2.8D AF S
- Nikon 18-35 mm 1: 3.5-4.5D AF
- Nikon 18-35 mm 1: 3.5-4.5G AF S
- Nikon 20-35 mm 1: 2.8D AF
Nikkor Z for mirrorless cameras:
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Conclusions
The Cosina MC 19-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5 is a very budget wide-angle lens for full-frame cameras. On Nikon FX cameras, the 19mm focal lengths give stunning frame coverage. I do not recommend using this lens on Nikon DX cameras, for them it is better to use a regular stock lens of the class 18-55/3,5-5,6. The lens is quite sharp, especially on covered apertures, but it suffers noticeably from chromatic aberrations and vignetting on open apertures. The distortion for such a wide-angle lens was within the normal range, which pleasantly surprised me. Also, the lens holds back light well.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
cool photos on film :)
Balaclava looks good :)
Autumn is not summer, the Crimean sky is not Kiev's, but the sky on the film is not killed as in the digital. There is something in the film from the picture, it is not measured in numbers (although you can try). This image is not “an attempt at faithful rendering”.
what is all inanimate in digital after the film! recently returned to photography after almost 40 years of hiatus :) in childhood, I took pictures first to replace, then to zenith, naturally, on b / w film. Having taken a digital photograph, having looked at the photos of others, I feel that something is not right, the pictures do not "catch" in the majority. still could not understand what was missing? I think I just saw :) thanks, Arkady!
Small defects are visible on film photos - most likely, microscratches from a film scanner. Compositionally, the footage is excellent. The color rendering of the film is pleasing to the eye. In general, Arkady's experiment can be considered very successful. Separate thanks from me personally - I asked him in his comment to the article on the mirror FF to give a review of this lens and Arkady, as an obligatory and very decent person, did not forget about it and did a review!
My subjective opinion, after watching film on digital photos, you look as if you finally rubbed the lens glass. Although the photos are beautiful on film, I'm still for the figure.
Exactly. Yes, they are "warm and tube", but they only catch nostalgers and fans. In fact, there are solid defects (especially grain), the color rendition is also far from natural. Only that the dynamic range is good. And so yes, the figure is much better today.
Denis, film does not cancel digital, just as digital does not cancel film - these are different genres. The film remained exactly as a genre. My boss is doing stucco molding for himself in a house under construction, an artist has arrived - fiddling around, drawing. Should I cancel it now? Stick on wall murals? After all, you get a more natural result. And considering the price of the work, it was possible to pave the wall with rimless panels for the same money and get an animated result - “as alive” and modern. And come on, people also buy oil paintings.
Photorealistic painting exists as a genre. When an artist reliably conveys wrinkled surfaces made of plastic wrap, metal cans and the like. At the same time, only the patience spent on such a "job" evokes respect. There is no sense in it. The combination of material and optics gives a specific technique in which the work of art is performed. The moment is not “reliably captured”. For modern techniques, other methods are used.
So I say, “they only cling to nostalgers and fans”, I have not canceled these fans, whoever likes it - let them rejoice. I started with the film myself, I really like the old solid film cameras, but I do not pull back at all.
Yuriy75, what have you “rubbed out” here?
http://500px.com/photo/52334140?from=popular
or here?
http://500px.com/photo/52377322?from=popular
http://500px.com/photo/52334794?from=popular
http://500px.com/photo/52348644?from=popular
Is this called photography?
for me it is "chemistry", cartoons, but not photography.
and this is the majority. although, of course, there are completely different pictures :)
A. Shapoval, for example :)
well, okay, here they seem to be discussing the lens ... :)
Please also send links to your similar "correct" work - otherwise I see in this only demagoguery of a student.
Arkady, I can’t do this for two reasons:
I simply do not have such “correct” photos - I do not use Photoshop. Especially in such doses. This is secondly.
and firstly, I don’t post my photos anywhere. I take pictures for myself. therefore I cannot call my photos “works”. :) everything that I leave is stored as filmed: mostly in raw format. if necessary , I translate into jpg in capture 1 or native Canon.
I don’t think that you would find anything interesting for yourself in my photos. But what you would definitely not find is “tons of photoshop”, as in the examples to which I referred :).
by the way, as I noticed, you yourself do not abuse "editing" :)
good luck to you.
It's a very bad position to sit back and not show anything. I have every right to believe that you do not have any photographs, therefore, in addition to find fault with other people's creativity, it has no right :) There are a lot of such statements in the comments from people who, apart from criticism, can do nothing.
“I don’t post my photos anywhere. I shoot for myself. Therefore, I can’t call my photos“ works ”. :) everything that I leave is kept as it was filmed: mostly in raw” - why are you taking pictures at all? In the converter and browsing? Maybe you don't even take pictures from your camera? Or never watch them at all?
What the hell is Photoshop? Everything that is smooth in the pictures, water, was smoothed solely by the means of the camera, photoshop is only a color correction, which everyone does, if you don’t know something or don’t understand then don’t be clever please.
And in general, why shoot in RAV if you do not process? Do you think that if you shoot in RAVE, then the photos will turn out better? Another stone in your direction.
dragging then in these photoshop photos almost none. ))))
Sorry if I offended you with something. Send all claims yuriyslesar75@mail.ru
Arkady’s photos, as always, you can only watch reviews because of them) Thank you!
To all fans of film-like sensations: try to learn how to work in a normal rav converter (do not offer LR)! and when you spend hours polishing photos in some Capture One and 3600 of the 36 frames are left (and they will be polished on a normal monitor with a normal color) and it will exceed the film costs by labor, can nostalgia allow a little?
so I'm talking about that: Arcadia has photos. And on the links where are the photos? everything went into “grinding”! This is not a photograph, but a polished “splint”. You won't be spoiled with film like that :). That's what I mean. But there is no special nostalgia for the film.
In the photos sent, most likely, the very idea was to make exactly smooth textures through long exposures. I am sure that this is a special idea of the photographers, under some of the above photos there is a description of how the photographer worked and took pictures. Also, these photos somehow got into the "popular" section at 500pixels, which is not so easy. As a result, photographers who worked and created and came up with their own unique composition with certain artistic ideas receive harsh criticism :)
I didn’t understand something from the comments whether to take the lens or not :) for $ 45 they offer according to the canon. For a wide angle I use the whale 17-85, but somehow from below it is soapy, it seems to me. I have 40d.
Well, what an infantile folk! To take a lens or not to take? Mom, marry me, al how? And if the girl is a fool, you yourself will be to blame that we didn’t succeed, you got it! And it’s up to you to decide who to blame then ??
shut up, moron, if you have nothing to answer on the case. here and so it is clear what I wanted to ask - will it be sharper than the whale one?
will not. In the conclusions, I made it clear that for Crop full-time station wagons would be better. Please, without insults on my site.
Thank you, Arkady for the answer. It’s just that you said about Nikon in the conclusions, and not at all. Does it happen that in one system some lenses are better, some worse. Or are the whales in all systems approximately the same?
Almost the same.
Yesterday I sold this lens after 3 weeks of use. Used on the D600. The name is Soligor 19-35. The lightroom showed up as 20-35. But it was much wider than Nikon 20mm 2.8. It seemed not sharp. A week later, I bought a Nikon 20mm 2.8 and compared with it. After F14 to F22, it was sharper than Nikon 20mm 2.8 when compared pixel by pixel. When looking at the photo, I liked the picture more with the Nikon 20mm 2.8. If as a temporary option it is possible at a price of up to $ 80. Still, what surprised him is very light. The front hood is huge. 77mm filter.
I have the same, only - “for Sony”. I use it for landscape photography. I like its sharpness. Among the shortcomings I would like to note is that it does not hold back light well and easily catches “hares”.
Some slides were either poorly stored or the processing was not of high quality, my Kodak100VS gave amazing results. Having clicked thousands of shots on a digit, sometimes I return to the slide projector and nostalgic, I remember, because saving shots I shot everything deliberately and write a story for each shot. Now there are folders on the hard drive and somehow process laziness, watch too. All the same, he returned to the slide. I take off my working moments on the digital, and something especially valuable and exotic when traveling on film, it’s a pity that processing E-6 is problematic, I have to ask for forwarding. And I tried this lens once a long time and it was on the slide. After our Soviet lenses, it was almost the first foreign (only MF), I liked it. Although I shot only one film, the pictures have not yet faded, they look pretty decent and there is no this yellowish tint like on the old ORWO /
Hello Arkady. I have a Tamron version of this lens for Nikon. Externally it looks the same, only the rubber bands on the rings and the font with paint at the marks are different. In the review, you wrote that the front lens rotates when focusing. In mine, it only slides forward slightly, but does not turn, so there should be no problems with the filters.
And how do you like the Nikon version? Share photos, I will be grateful. Well, or at least an opinion)
I bought it in 2005. Tamron for nikon. At that time I was shooting with Nikon N90S. It was not cheap. I paid 500 Canadian dollars without taxes at Henry's. After buying Nikon D800 I began to shoot them again. Everything that is written here is also true for my copy, I just want to add that it fills the shots by about 1.3 stops. I introduce underexposure when shooting. And it's quite practical thing. I even used it at a wedding. When fully open, it is quite sharp.
Photo of the Lavra, why did they turn it so yellow - it already eats away the eyes, here are the real colors, they look great:
Good afternoon, Arkady! Have you had any experience with such lenses on Canon EF? the opinion is interesting - is it worth bothering with nouns. Now I have the widest one - it's 24-85, I want it wider. (6D camera)
The native Canon 20-35 will definitely not be worse, but this is not so much wider than the existing 24 mm. But inexpensive. Of the more expensive, the relatives are 20-35 / 2.8L, 17-35 / 2.8L - old, but decent. If you can find cheap, which is unlikely. Well, the newer 17-40 / 4L, which can be found at an affordable price and it will be immediately wide and good. Alas, there is no wide-angle optics available for a full frame.
Native 20-35 will be significantly better. Not worth it.
Thanks…. That the native is much better is a fact. But it also costs 4K. Even better is 16-35, but this is a completely different price range. And the phoenix is sold for 1,6K. So I'm thinking about taking / not taking. A shirik will come in handy for a trip to Lviv. But as an amateur - I don't really want to spend money.
Arkady Hello! You can post something about Tamron AF 19-35 mm f / 3.5-4.5 or something similar to it. There is really no information about it anywhere. Thank you!
As far as I know, this is the same Cosina 19-35
Thank you!
They were also under the brands Vivitar, Soligor, etc.
I shot a lot of tamron 19-35mm on canon. Cutting. Chromate If you need to lay out.
Now on OLH such new ones from 1600 UAH ($ 65) under the names Phoenix, Promaster, Tamron. Only the latter is 1,5 times more expensive - 2400. There is something to think about for that kind of money.
The test photo from such a lens is under the Promaster brand, 19 mm, f3.5, without processing, with Canon 5D.
The same conditions, only f8.0.
35 mm, f4.5.
35 mm, f8.0.
Promaster 19-35, 19 mm F11, with Canon 5D, without any processing
Same parameters
same parameters