 |
|
|
bluepolo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 15, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
fast, fairly light, sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
Got this lens at Christmas 2008 to replace the kit 18-70 that I sold when I sold my D70.
My first impression was that it was good, but not really good, seemed a touch soft. Then, over a period of 6 months it started misbehaving, basically the auto-focus stopped working, and also the lens would not initialise properly when I turned on my D300, which led the D300 to think there was no lens attached.
Emailed warehouse express (UK dealer) who sold me the lens, and arranged for me to take it to Intro in Maidenhead. Advertised turnaround is a couple of weeks; they had it ready in 4 days! Great service.
When it came back, the focus and sharpness were superb, a level up from when I first had it. Now, for me its 10/10 for image quality.
Build quality still a little suspect since the thread that holds the lens hood has gone wobbly, so it'll be back for that to be fixed.
|
|
 Jul 13, 2009
|
|
bluepolo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 15, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, wide, fairly light, good value
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
Got this lens at Christmas 2008 to replace the kit 18-70 that I sold when I sold my D70.
My first impression was that it was good, but not really good, seemed a touch soft. Then, over a period of 6 months it started misbehaving, basically the auto-focus stopped working, and also the lens would not initialise properly when I turned on my D300, which led the D300 to think there was no lens attached.
Emailed warehouse express (UK dealer) who sold me the lens, and arranged for me to take it to Intro in Maidenhead. Advertised turnaround is a couple of weeks; they had it ready in 4 days! Great service.
When it came back, the focus and sharpness were superb, a level up from when I first had it. For example,
http://picasaweb.google.com/quitetall/Sardinia#5349363253719604066
and I used the lens all the time during a recent trip to Sardinia
http://picasaweb.google.com/quitetall/Sardinia
Now, for me its 10/10 for image quality.
Build quality still a little suspect since the thread that holds the lens hood has gone wobbly, so it'll be back for that to be fixed.
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2009
|
|
dealaddict
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 11, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 31
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
good price, very sharp wide open at F2.8 for a zoom lens
|
|
Cons:
|
quality control, build quality is just ok
|
|
|
The first copy I got has front focus issue, image is soft. Since I bought it on internet, it takes me 4 weeks to get a new one. Luckily, the 2nd one is focus properly. I am very impressed by the sharpness of this lens, very sharp. A little bit softer than my Canon 50mm F1.4 when zoom in 100%, so, I don't think you can see any different in a normal print.
My rating is based on the good copy, so, make sure you buy from somewhere you can return or exchange.
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2009
|
|
stactum
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 5, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 5, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $409.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, sharp, relatively cheap, decent range
|
|
Cons:
|
Fungus prone
|
|
|
Overall, very nice lens. Picture quality wise you can't beat this lens at this price, but build quality isn't great, but still pretty good. A bit noisy when focusing, but not bad. Got fungus after a year, read online that this Tamron is somewhat fungus prone. Repair cost is $155 when sent to Tamron.
|
|
|
Jun 5, 2009
|
|
emandavi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 998
|
|
Review Date: May 31, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $375.00
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp lens, fast, and perfect zoom range for digital cameras.
|
|
Cons:
|
NONE
|
|
|
I loved this lens so much on my 10D that i bought another one for my 40D. It's what I use most often, even though I have a 24-70 2.8L lens. The 24-70 just doesn't give me a wide enough lens in tight spots, like inside a brides room when she's getting ready. Then, when I was able to purchase a used Nikon digital camera at a good price, I bought the Nikon version of the 17-50 for it. I had the 16-35 2.8L lens, but I sold it, and got most of my money back. I'm happy with the 17-50 lens, and none of my customers know that I use it instead of the extravagantly expensive L lenses. This lens and the Tamron 28-75 2.8 lens are my most often used lens.
|
|
|
May 31, 2009
|
|
krolsasuke
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 30, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 27, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Affordable price, small compact size, comes with hood, wide aperture
|
|
Cons:
|
Very soft images at wide aperture, noisy autofocus, average buoild quality
|
|
|
In my opinion, this lens is not worth the money paid. I bought this lens last winter after reading numerous praises regarding it's capability to capture sharp images with excellent IQ even at wide aperture. However to my dismay I later find out that images taken at f2.8 were very soft and certainly not up to my expectation. Even after stopping down to f5.6 the sharpness only improves a little. I send it back to Tamron Service Centre (UK) for recalibration and it took another 3 weeks before they returned it back to me. However to my diasppointment there doesn't seems to be any differences in IQs. I continue to use this lens until I bought the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS and the IQs produced by this lens just blew me up! When compared side by side images taken at f2.8 with the EF-S lens were much sharper and richer in colour. In fact it almost rivals my EF-s 60mm f2.8 Macro lens (but not quite near the quality considering that this is a prime). In conclusion I would recommend people to look away at another alternatives if you're looking for a fast zoom lens. Although they are much more expensive, in the long run the IQs produced are way better and worth every cents spent.
|
|
|
May 27, 2009
|
|
krolsasuke
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 30, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 27, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Lighweight
Wide f/2.8 aperture
Cheaper compared to other alternatives
Comes with hood
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor image quality and sharpness
Noisy autofocus
Poor build quality
|
|
|
I bought this lens for my EOS 40D last winter after reading numerous praise about the IQ produced by this lens and its capability to produce sharp images even at f/2.8. However to my disappointment images taken at f/2.8 came out very soft and certainly not up to my expectation. Even after stopping down to f5.6 there were only minimal increase in image sharpness. I ran some quick focusing test and found that this lens suffers from back focusing. I sent it back to Tamron Service Centre (UK) for recalibration, explaining about the problem and it takes 3 weeks before the lens is returned back to me. However, to my disappointment (again!) there doesn't seems to be any changes at all interms of image quality/sharpness. I continue to use this lens for a while before buying a second hand Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS and the resulting images were like heaven and earth! Images taken with the Canon lenses are extraordinarily sharp, almost as sharp (probably up to 70% at comparable aperture) as my EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro prime lens. Therefore is you're looking for a fast general purpose zoom lens, I would suggest to look at better alternative (like the amazing EF-S 17-55 f2.8). Although other alternatives are more expensive but in the long run the IQ worth every cent spent.
|
|
|
May 27, 2009
|
|
platypus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 29, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, nicely made, SHARP! Stiff zoom action.
|
|
Cons:
|
None yet.
|
|
|
Really pleased with first results after lens arrived today. This lens is truly sharp at all apertures and focal lengths with just a little edge softness wide open - quite an achievement for a zoom. The results look more like prime lenses have been used which is praise indeed for any lens of this type.
I had heard of Tamron's poor QC and experienced Sigma's at first hand but it looks like I have been lucky and got a good copy.
Balances very nicely on my 40D and focus seems to be pretty reliable. I had tried a Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 macro S/H but this had serious back focus issues and I don't think it was a sharp as this Tamron.
Now I have a standard lens I can take anywhere with confidence - I just wish it was a little longer - 17-70mm 2.8 would be a real boon for me. Then of course it would be larger, heavier and probably not so sharp.
|
|
|
May 13, 2009
|
|
Drew Chiaro
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 114
|
|
Review Date: Apr 25, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, light, low cost, constant 2.8, good range, accurate AF
|
|
Cons:
|
loud autofocus (if you care)
|
|
|
This is just a terrific lens all around. The sharpness, colors, and contrast are wonderful. This was my first lens I bought to replace the kit lens that came with my Rebel XT. I have since upgraded to a 40D and have 4 other lenses. This one is still one of my favorites all-around. It is a great walk around lens, its light, has a good range and the constant 2.8 is awesome. If you are looking for a replacement or upgrade to your kit lens, look no further- this is it. Pair it with a 70-200 f4L and you are golden.
The one thing that bothers some people is the loud AF. It's not really that loud, its just that its loud compared to USM or HSM offered by canon and sigma. But honestly, it doesn't bother me.
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2009
|
|
matnen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2008
Location: Ukraine
Posts: 104
|
|
Review Date: Apr 14, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $430.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, sharp, good color, useable zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
soft at 17mm F2,8....
|
|
|
Like this lens because of zoom range and colors that are close to Canon's colors.Can compare with Sigma 17-70."Tam" is sharper and colors are warmer.A good company to Canon's lenses.
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2009
|
|
Patricio Murphy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 16, 2009
Location: Argentina
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 16, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp
Constant f/2.8 aperture
IF
|
|
Cons:
|
Provided lens hood slightly missaligned
Extendes while zooming, a potential source of dirt getting inside the lens or the mechanics
|
|
|
For the price, excellent. Compared it in the shop against the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8, better build, but AF on the Tamron was way better.
Contrary to other reviewer, I find it very lightweight, focuses fast and accurately, it's extremely sharp.
I bought it during a trip. I was also carrying my 20mm f/3.5, 28mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8, all very sharp lenses. While the zoom wouldn't survive a thorough comparison against the primes, it's good enough to have rendered the primes obsolete: it has stayed on the camera eversince I bought it. That speaks about how I feel about it.
It's a compromise, yes, but a good one. Useful focal lenghts with exceptional image quality in a fast zoom.
Only drawbacks I can mention are the cheap lens hood that is slightly missaligned and is easy to get moved and vignette (anyway, at least it comes with a lens hood...) and the fact that it extends while zooming. It comes with a lock to prevent creeping, but it will collect dust if used in dusty environments. Build quality is OK, good enough, but not outstanding.
It's a lens I highly reccomend, no doubts. Now I can carry one body with 80-200 f/2.8 and the other with 17-50 f/2.8 and have a wide range of focal leghts covered with excellent image quality.
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2009
|
|
nbrickett
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 15, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 15, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Top notch image quality, super-fast focusing, F2.8 on full range, excellently priced, the tamron lens cap, zoom lock
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy AF, no full-time manual focus override, lens extends when zoomed
|
|
|
I've had a lot of lenses in my time, but this is without doubt the best multi-purpose zoom I've ever had in my kit.
Yesterday I shot 500+ shots at a wedding, and almost exclusively used this lens - it's perfect for almost every occasion. Paired with my EF-S 55-250 IS, Sigma 30mm F1.4 and Canon 40D, I've got a very powerful kit now.
I would highly recommend this lens to anyone wanting a multi-purpose lens that is FAST and accurate for a reasonable price!
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2009
|
|
Andrew Dutcher
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 19, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 145
|
|
Review Date: Jan 31, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp. Excellent price:performance ratio. Comes with hood (take note, Canon)
|
|
Cons:
|
Build not amazing (not terrible either). AF a bit slow and loud
|
|
|
I love this lens. At this price point, it really is a very good deal. No, it is not L, but it produces rock-solid images and is fast. I far prefer this to the canon 17-85 for superior image quality (plus, of course the wider aperture). If looking for a good-quality "budget" low-light zoom, this is the way to go.
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2009
|
|
stargazer78
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 18, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 350
|
|
Review Date: Jan 20, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp; Good build quality; compact size;
|
|
Cons:
|
Warm color cast; Unreliable autofocus; Bokeh quality is below average;
|
|
|
[reviewed on a Rebel XTi]
Negatives:
-- Autofocus is unreliable in low light
-- Slight loss of contrast & sharpness at telephoto end
-- Heavily warm color cast, easily seen in photos & viewfinder
-- There's a little too much contrast
-- Bokeh quality is below average
-- Focus ring is too small, too flimsy, and too loose
-- Vignetting can be severe @ f2.8
-- At 17mm, it has a noticeably curved field of focus @ f2.8
-- Tamron's rear lens cap annoyingly won't fit some other lenses
Positives:
-- Excellent sharpness when stopped down to f4.0 or smaller
-- Build quality is very good (except for focus ring)
-- Zoom ring is nice wide, and stiff... plus no zoom creep at all
-- Tamron's front lens caps are the best I've ever used
-- Handles well with any camera because of its compact size
-- Decent lens for the money
This was a lens that made a good impression on me in 2006, mostly because of its sharpness. But I grew to like it less and less over the years. The colors it produced were noticeably poor compared to my EF lenses. This lens projects images with a heavy yellow tint --- some people may not realize it immediately because their cameras are compensating through Auto White Balance. Unnaturally high contrast got to be irritating after a while. Inconsistent AF in low light also got to be very annoying.
Not recommended. This was a decent lens in 2006. But today, there are better options out there. No question this is a sharp lens, but sharpness isn't everything.
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2009
|
|
marconis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 26, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $417.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, constant 2.8 aperture, good focus
|
|
Cons:
|
slight focus buzz
|
|
|
First I compared it at 50mm against my Canon 50mm f1.4 at 2.8, 4 and 11 apertures and it was comparable. Slight softness zoomed in at pixels off-center at 2.8 but overall very sharp. Used tripod and spot focus on same detailed object.
Then I compared it at 20mm against my Canon 20mm f2.8 at 2.8, 4, and 11 apertures. It was as sharp wen zoomed in - looked even sharper - may have been increased contrast. Used tripod and spot focus on same detailed object.
I'm very happy with it. Mine says it was made in Japan. (Together with the Canon 55-250mm IS lens makes a combination that covers the range most amateurs want and both deliver sharpness.)
Small things - I don't lock the lens hood since it seems difficult to remove when that is done. I like the zoom lock for the lens and the front lens cover - can remove it easily even with a hood on.
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2008
|
|
pikminsg1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 14, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Dec 9, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $409.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Good image quality, lightweight, hood included, pinch cap design
|
|
Cons:
|
Very noise AF. I think this bargain lens is still over priced.
|
|
|
Good build, solid zoom ring feel, the zoom lock is nice. My copy seems to be sharper at the longer end then on the wide end. Colors are very warm and deep.
The noise of the AF is unbearable. It is way to loud! I bought the Tamron as my first lens and wanted a bargain price. A year later I have now purchased the cheapo 50 1.8 and my first L 70-200 f4 IS. Wow, picture quality has increased ten folds. Aside from the 50 1.8 I will never buy a lens for it's bargain price. For me the money spent on a quality lens is well worth it in the long run. Lesson learned.
In conclusion it's a good bargain quality lens but I'm just not satisfied with it's overall performance.
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
187
|
365329
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
