|
|
lamontsanders
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 44
|
|
Review Date: Oct 30, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $330.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Constant 2.8, Small, Light, Focus Lock at 28mm. Inexpensive. Good for travel or budget photographers.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not sharp. No weather seal. AF is kind of slow, really hunts in low light. No red ring ;)
|
|
I sold this lens when I bought a 24-70L. It was worth it to me. The weather sealing and IQ outweigh the weight of the L lens. This is a good lens - as good as my 24-105L was. It, however, is not a 24-70L and that is what I was truly after.
|
|
 Oct 30, 2009
|
|
marconis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 27, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $395.00
|
|
Pros:
|
seemed sharp but I never used it for more than 20 photos because it vignetted so badly on the 5D Mark II
|
|
Cons:
|
vignettes at all focal lengths on the 5D Mark II
|
|
This lens vignettes at all focal lengths on the 5D Mark II. I took it back to the camera store, they also tried a different copy of this lens on a different 5D Mark II and it also vignetted. It does not vignette pointed at the sky but every indoor shot had noticeably dark corners at all focal lengths. The camera store salesman was confused why they were doing this and tried to call Tamron.
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2009
|
|
chylld
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 8, 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 24, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $365.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Fast AF (Nikon screw-drive version), Compact, Great IQ, Creamy bokeh, everything!
|
|
Cons:
|
No VR, 28mm not very wide on DX (obviously), Zoom ring a little wobbly, Focus ring turns with AF
|
|
Bought this lens second-hand and I absolutely love it! The image quality is outstanding, very sharp with no visible CA, perfect focus accuracy and blissfully creamy bokeh. Being my first f/2.8 zoom I will say the inevitable: once you go to 2.8, you can never go back!
Absolutely nothing bad to say about the lens, struggled to come up with the cons above. One possible con is if you are unfortunate enough to have the built-in motor version; Tamron AF lens motors are horribly slow and inconsistent. I specifically hunted for the Nikon screw-drive AF version and am glad I did; my AF speed is easily twice as fast as the Canon youtube AF speed test video for this same lens.
Highly recommended!
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2009
|
|
ashley
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Feb 24, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Competitively priced and good optics
|
|
Cons:
|
badly let down by poor quality control
|
|
I bought this lens about 2 years ago for use with my 1Ds II on a specific job where it wasn't convenient or pragmatic to regularly change prime lenses. At first it was very good and I was more impressed than I expected for a lens of this price.
Roll forward about a year and I noticed that the lens was suddenly front focussing which it hadn't done before so I called Tamron who agreed to adjust it but at a cost of over £60 and it took them a month before it was returned. All seemed much better when it returned and I used it back in October for a studio shoot with a model and saw that the results were very close in sharpness to my 85mm Canon prime, but it didn't last...
A couple weeks ago I wanted to use it again and fired off a few test shots just to see how it was handling and discovered that it now appeared to be back focussing but when I looked closer I saw that the right side of the image was in perfect focus while the left hand side was now really soft and the middle was focussed to the rear of where I intended. It seems like that a lens element has moved and its now next to useless requiring another trip to Tamron.
I shall call Tamron about this and see if they will repair it again under guarantee but frankly I have lost patience with this lens if the build quality and reliability is this poor. In 20 years of professional photography I've never had a lens go wrong like this and especially after so little use. This is the 2nd Tamron I have bought in the last few years and on paper they look like excellent value but both have been huge disappointments so I shall not be buying their lenses again.
The real shame in all of this is that when it was performing well it was clearly a very capable little lens and very useful. Wide open it wasn't perfect on the full frame 1Ds II but after stopping down a couple of stops it was pin sharp.
This morning I took delivery of a 24-105L and its a lot more money but the initial test shots show that it can compete on an even footing with my primes at all apertures and the focus is absolutely precise. I guess you get what you pay for in the long run.
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2009
|
|
jamey_cc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 8, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 86
|
|
Review Date: Feb 19, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp even if it cost more, but for this price its crazy!
|
|
Cons:
|
build quality
|
|
I had this lens for 4 years with my 20D and always thought, "well, I must have one of those soft versions" but now that I have a 5dMKII I realize I just had a soft camera. It's amazing! I don't even sharpen my images in post production anymore. I was considering a canon L but now I think I'll focus that money on a wide zoom L instead.
I'm as pleased with the sharpness and bokeh on this lens as I am on my 70-200L f4. Infact, on my 20D I used that lens most, on my 5dII I haven't used it but twice so far.
I get a bit of movement in the front end that since I bought it has made me nervous, but after 4 years it's never been a problem and the lens keeps chugging along.
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2009
|
|
rhembein
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Apr 30, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 381
|
|
Review Date: Oct 24, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing!!!
|
|
Excellent lens! I was delighted by the color coming straight out of the lens! BEAUTIFUL! As though I have a ND or CP filter on it!! Sharp! Quick! Light! Can't say a bad thing about it! I use it in every type of photography and it rarely leaves my Canon 40D... except to go on my 5D! 
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2008
|
|
zakb7
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 6, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
small, f/2.8, sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
buzzy autofocus
|
|
I've tested this lens and its spawn, the 17-50mm f/2.8. This is an older design meant for film cameras; my camera body has an APS-C sized sensor. So to my eyes, it looks like 45-120mm. Of course, unlike the 17-50, this one will work on "full frame" digital camera bodies.
On a crop-sensor camera, the focal length is nothing special...at the wide end. But an equivalent 120mm at f/2.8 at the telephoto end, that's pretty cool. The shallow depth of field combined with a mild telephoto focal length is fun to have.
I found it to be fairly sharp wide open, probably due to using a smaller-sensor camera with a full-frame design. And really, at this price point, lenses like this aren't going to ace sharpness tests in the corners wide open.
Landscapes I shot at f/8 were extremely sharp. In fact, from f/4 onward I found this lens to be much sharper than expected. Not that sharpness equals good pictures in all cases, of course.
It's built well, though not cumbersome. If you have a film camera or a full-frame digital camera, this would be a great walk-around lens. And at f/2.8, you'll get some pictures indoors you'd never get with slower consumer zooms.
So I gotta hand it to Tamron, this is a pretty good lens, especially for what it costs.
|
|
|
Oct 6, 2008
|
|
guydownthetret
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 30, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 30, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $320.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
light and inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
soft @ 2.8
|
|
I had this lens for about 2 months and got tired of it. It sucks at focusing in low lighting (I started shooting weddings and need accurate focusing indoors). I might have had a body copy but it isn't very sharp at 2.8 even with post work. I found it acceptable at 4.0. I may have a bad copy though. The bokeh at 2.8 is great even when stopped down the 7 aperture blades look fine if you aren't scrutinizing your bokeh. For the price, this is a great lens, its small, inexpensive and I would recommend it to anyone who wants something similar to the 24-70 L but doens't want to drop 1k on a lens. (get a flash... photography is all about lighting anyways)
I upgraded to the 28-135 f3.5-5.6 i lost those stops in aperture but I gained IS, USM, and a longer range. the tamron is sharper than the 28-135 at all stops and focal lengths as far as I can tell. But IS, accurate/quiet focusing and that reach is important to me.
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2008
|
|
Chuck Kuhn
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Feb 24, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3860
|
|
Review Date: Jul 8, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $317.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheaply main body.
|
|
I've been shooting with this lens almost 3 yrs. I stopped using it 1 yr ago, because of warranty issues with Tamron. I had trouble with zooming and lens would lock up. I took it to warranty repair in Long Island NY. 3 weeks later they asked for $276 to repair, claiming it was in Shock. Well, I was Shocked, since I could buy a new one for another hundred bucks. The lense itself worked wonders. After reading other reviews on warranty issues, the 6 yrs limited warranty was something I didn't want to deal with. Again the light weight body and build was my issue. I buy nothing but Canon now. My travels take me all over and I need something Sturdy, Well Build and I'm must also admit I'm not as careful as I should be with equipment. Frankly I missed the weight and structure of a well build lense.
|
|
|
Jul 8, 2007
|
|
phreeky82
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 22, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Quite sharp at F/2.8, very sharp from F/3.2 onwards
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom ring rotation direction, not silky smooth movement
|
|
I got for AU$400 2nd hand, and absolutely love this lens. At F/2.8 I've found it to be very acceptable, only the slightest of softness. From F/3.2 my copy gets very sharp, and stopped down any further it is beyond the resolution of the sensor of my 300D.
The zoom ring being the opposite to canon is a little annoying - I honestly didn't think it'd worry me at all, but it does a bit - but that's not a negative on the lenses part at all. The movement of the zoom ring also isn't silky smooth, it feels a tiny bit tight around 35mm or so, but still quite acceptable.
The Auto/Manual focus switch is fine, the zoom lock is for example better than that on the Canon 70-300 IS USM in my opinion, and the included lens hood fits quite nicely and is nice and strong.
Also am impressed with absolutely zero barrel wobble.
|
|
|
Jun 4, 2007
|
|
Chow Monkey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 4, 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 26, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Have this lens for a year now. In this range I think it's the best buy. Sharpness is amazing. Does well in lowlight situations. Built is ok. Awesome for streetphotography.
|
|
|
May 26, 2007
|
|
Rahul Rangan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 134
|
|
Review Date: Mar 12, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $420.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, saturation, very contrasty (is that even a word? :-))
|
|
Cons:
|
Sometimes slow to focus, cheap and plastic build quality. Loud AF
|
|
I actually traded in the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L for this lens and I am so glad I did. Less than a third of the price for a lens that has a sharper AF. The only major drawback for me is the annoyingly loud AF.
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2007
|
|
|
