 |
|
|
DynoMoHum
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 24, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 304
|
|
Review Date: Mar 8, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very good image quality when it focuses correctly. Overall build quality is quite good I think, not quite as good as a "L" lens but it's not bad.
|
|
Cons:
|
Quality control issues? I have owned four of these, the first three had severe front focus problems, the fourth one focuses fine. The location of the zoom ring takes some getting used to... it's easy to get your fingers/hand in the way of the focus ring while using the zoom...
|
|
|
Aside from having to obtain four or these before I got one that focused correctly... I have no complaints about this lens. I purchased four of these lenses, from three different retailers. I tried several of them on four different Canon bodies. I was really close to giving up on this lens, until I obtained the fourth one that focuses correctly.
The issues I had with obtaining a 'good' lens are really the only significant negative issue I've had with this lens. In the USA you get a five year warranty with the Tamron and overall I think this lens is a very good value for the owner of a APS-C type DSLR.
Yes, the focus is louder then a USM lens... but hey, no one said it was USM.
To me, the best alternative to this lens is the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS, but at twice the price... I just could not justify the cost of that lens for my photography needs.
|
|
 Mar 8, 2007
|
|
goonygoogoo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 28, 2006
Location: Iraq
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, sharpness, 2.8, and range for a reasonable price. Great default and walkaround lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF is not as good as Canon's USM on L's. Noisy and slow in comparison, but still accurate. No full time manual focus when AF is on.
|
|
|
I bought this lens as a replacement for my kit lens after seriously considering the 17-40 F4L but after reading many reviews on the IQ of this lens decided to go for this one. Honestly I would have gone with the 17-40 had it been 2.8 but hight shutter speeds are a common need of mine and felt that would be a better bet. Focus speeds are slower on the Tamron so it's a little bit of a toss up still but I am very happy with this lens. Before getting this lens I was constantly changing lenses between my 50 1.8, kit lens, and 17-200L but since getting the Tamron it stays on my camera most of the time. Sure for more than double the cost I could have the Canon 17-55 IS 2.8 but for the cost this lens can't be beat.
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2007
|
|
Heatseeker99
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 163
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $439.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
I have had this lens for a year now and it is my "go to" lens for any shots in this range. Accurate AF (fast enough), sharp at 2.8, nice colors. Its built well enough for me. Nice and tight construction, zoom lock, comes with hood. Nice bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF is a little noisy. Hunts some in low light. would love an extra 20mm on the long end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2007
|
|
jlandaue
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 5, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 672
|
|
Review Date: Mar 6, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $449.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast and accurate focusing, Sharp, good color saturation
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Get this lens instead of the kit 18-55 lens that come with the camera. The f 2.8 is a plus. I really don't mind the sound made by the focusing motor. In fact some times call people's attention.
I had previously owned the Canon 17-40 L, but some times I prefered to use this Tamron. Specially because focusing was more accurate.
This is a lens to always have in your camera. I have used them for night parties, as well as indoors sport events where the ambient light is low, but the 2.8 helped me out a lot.
Photographing people is nice with this lens. Exposure and skin tones are perfect. Some times a little bit oversaturated, but that is not a major issue.
|
|
|
Mar 6, 2007
|
|
Raf Manteleers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 6, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
fine saturated colours.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
This is an excellent lens that produces fine, saturated and natural colours and sharp images on my Canon 350D. It's light and looks good.
|
|
|
Mar 6, 2007
|
|
SKYWESTR
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1225
|
|
Review Date: Mar 6, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $425.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Low cost, great color/contrast, very sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hunts a little in low light/low contrast scenes.
|
|
|
I've had the 17-50 for about six months and it's my primary lens. I've compared it to my friends 17-40L and at 2.8 it's hard to notice any image quality differences at 4.0 they're identical. The build is not as bullett proof as L glass but it's half the cost as well. This is a great lens for someone who wants pro images but can't afford the pro price. I would also recommend you make sure you're getting a sharp copy. Tamron's quality control isn't like Canon's so some lenses are great and others back/front focus.
|
|
|
Mar 6, 2007
|
|
crosstrainer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 7, 2006
Location: Philippines
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality is better than what you're paying for
how it's built - tight and dense, but not too heavy
quick AF even though it's not an AF-S
Close-focus capability
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy AF - antiquated screw-driven mechanism
Distortion at the wide end, till about 40mm
not wide enough (15mm please)
not long enough (70mm please)
|
|
Put succintly, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR LD Aspherical (IF) is a poor man's constant aperture crop-factor optimized normal lens. Sure there are a lot of great film-optimized 28-70mm f/2.8 lenses out there, but 28mm isn't exactly wide on digital. Sure, both nikon and canon makes excellent 17-55mm f/2.8 lenses, but they cost an arm and half a leg.
Image quality is better than what you're paying for, and in fact it is quite surprising. Colors are bright, contrast is just right and sharpness is pretty good.
Even the way it's built is quite pleasing. For a constant 2.8 lens, it's compact, tight and dense, but not too heavy nor too long.
Focusing is also very good, and it focuses quickly even though it's not an AF-S lens. This plus the fact that it focuses quite close, it makes for an amazing walk-around lens, with slight macro capabilities.
A few caveats though:
Noisy AF - antiquated screw-driven mechanism
Distortion at almost all focal lengths, and even at 50mm, portraiture is rather difficult without distorting your subject's face.
samples:
flower shot
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chewychua/262760513/in/set-72157594316245821/
100% crop of the flower shot above
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chewychua/262760514/in/set-72157594316245821/
yummy prawns at 30,000 feet
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chewychua/290438509/in/set-72157594316245821/
pretty lemon squeezer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chewychua/378780354/in/set-72157594316245821/
more shots here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chewychua/sets/72157594316245821/
|
|
|
Mar 5, 2007
|
|
Aephid
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 260
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, image quality, size, weight, focal range, 6 year warranty.
|
|
Cons:
|
APS-C only, noisy AF motor, no full time manual focusing.
|
|
|
I have owned both the 17-40 L and this lense. I sold the L and am not sorry. This lens is fast and sharp and has an awsome focal range.
Only wish it were a little more quiet.
|
|
|
Mar 5, 2007
|
|
notica007
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as sharp as equal Canon Lens, Tamron Support
|
|
|
I have now had owned this lens for just under a year. During that year, I used it for about two months when I noticed that it was starting to back focus. I sent the lens to Tamron for repair. I received delivery confirmation from USPS so I knew they had received the lens. After about two weeks of hearing nothing from Tamron, I emailed there tech support using their Repair Status option found on their website. After using this lens for a total of four times without ever getting a response I called them directly. Long story short... after six months of the lens being in their hands, I received it back with the same problem. I now only use this lens when I really need the wide 17mm and f2.8 in the interim while I wait for my Canon replacement lens.
|
|
|
Mar 5, 2007
|
|
GreenMage
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 10, 2004
Location: Austria
Posts: 255
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
f2,8 , lightweight, sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
plastic, loud AF, not as fast as USM
|
|
|
I really like the Tamron!
Lovely contrast and colors, sharp at 2,8: 100% usable outcome
The AF noisy, and in Lowlight slow, but it never misses :-)
Perfect lens for people who can't afford the 17-55 L IS for 400 bucks more you geht better buildquality and USM nothing more.
I had mine sent in for 3 long months because of frontfocus, now its spot on.
|
|
|
Mar 5, 2007
|
|
Strid3r
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 18, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1329
|
|
Review Date: Mar 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $449.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing Lens...period. Cannot be beaten for the money and takes nearly double the price to beat it with the 17-55 IS.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF is loud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 4, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
187
|
365149
|
Apr 25, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
87% of reviewers
|
$412.04
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.10
|
9.31
|
8.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
