 |
|
|
zshaft
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Aug 31, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $330.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp, price, +hood, not heavy, good for low-light condition
|
|
Cons:
|
noisy, distortion.
|
|
|
i bought this lens in my country about a month ago.
just got recommendation from someone, to replace the kit lens (canon 400d).
after i tried the lens in certain locations n events, i become very pleased with the IQ it brings. Very sharp images,even in low-light indoors without flash, while the aperture is 2.8.
well, the problems i found from this lens is about the distortion at the widest angle, also from the noise it makes to search the focus, but i think it's still acceptable for me..
(considering the price).
I highly recommend this lens for you who wants to replace the kit lens.
Thanks
|
|
 Aug 31, 2008
|
|
photog4fun
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 85
|
|
Review Date: Aug 29, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
This lens is my walk around lens. I use it 80% of the time. It is wonderfully sharp and fast and light. I've had it a year and am very happy with it.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2008
|
|
pointerDixie21
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 22, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 22, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp as can be at f/2.8, great colors, great contrast, good build quality, and perfect focal range for crop cam walk around lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom ring rotates in opposite direction as Canon and Sigma zoom rings.
|
|
|
Great lens for the money!!! I wish it were built just a touch better (my Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG is better built for half the price). Great focus (although a bit loud) and this lens will be on my 30D most of the time. I think the Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 is a better bargain, but if you need 17mm or have the money, this is the better lens, despite the inferior build quality.
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008
|
|
bellini5
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 17, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 17, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, good construction
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality is on average side (about half of pictures is blur)
|
|
|
Purchased online from Dell store. Testing in real life brought very unsatisfied results – more than 50% of pictures were out of focus, the remaining still were worse than made by Canon 10-22mm lens (at 17mm). I had to send it to Tamron USA for repair. However, nothing changed after I received it back!
In lab testing (with tripod) the lens showed much better results – sharp in center at any aperture, corner improves gradually at f.4-5.6-8. Is compatible with Canon EF-S10-22mm (at 17mm) and better than Canon EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 (at 50mm).
Very controversial results, so I can not consider it as a stable lens. For my opinion a price for this lens is a bit higher.
Autofocus is fast enough and the motor sound does not bother me.
Camera: Canon EOS350D
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2008
|
|
ouzzan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 17, 2008
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 17, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
quite sharp when wide open, the low price compared ti 17-55 nikon,
|
|
Cons:
|
plasticky (but I have the japan one ;), focus hunt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2008
|
|
Etienne Otero
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 10, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 468
|
|
Review Date: Aug 4, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $410.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast zoom and focus, super sharp at all mm's.
|
|
Cons:
|
none at all...
|
|
|
The perfect lens... After using the equivalent Nikon 17-55 DX for over a year, bought the Tamron just to try it (after testing 4 different ones at the store and choosing the sharpest of all). I could nos see the difference in quality and color rendition between the two, so the Nikon was sold and I kept the Tamron. Saved $500 on top of that. Bottom line, if you want to buy this lens, try a few of them before you slide the credit card and you'll be very happy.
|
|
|
Aug 4, 2008
|
|
Edward Gill
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 27, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 70
|
|
Review Date: Jul 31, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Optical quality, weight, warranty, versatility, reliability, hood provided.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus ring turns, not full time manual focus.
|
|
|
For optics compare DXO performance on SLRgear:
Outperforms Canon 20mm f2.8 @ 17mm (20mm not tested)
Outperforms Canon 24mm f2.8 @ 24mm
Outperforms Canon 28mm F2.8 @ 28mm
Outperforms Canon 35mm F2.0 @ 35mm
Matches Canon 50mm F1.8 @ 50mm
And it's a constant aperature zoom!
How much more do you want out of a $ 350-400 lens?
Color cast - who cares if you're shooting digital? Since this is a reduced image circle lens color cast would only affect APS film shooters so I don't understand issues with color cast when shooting digital - learn to use custome WB if your needs are that critical.
Construction is solid and stable plus with a six year warranty compared to Canon's one year - again what else do you want?
My cheapo Tamron 19-35mm is four years old and still works perfectly - and still under warranty.
Lens caps are superior to most OEM caps. Comes with a lens hood (not a $20 - $40 extra). Works on my 10D and my 40D - Canon EF-S wont - THANKS CANON! Thank you Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma for making reduced image circle lenses that work on my 10D.
No issues with focusing - but - this lens has fairly substantial field curvature at wide-wide settings so that my be throwing some focusing off. Use center focus point on critical element and re-compose if you must use 17mm at 2.8-4.0. Otherwise stop down for depth of field/focus.
For value, this is a 10+. Not a perfect lens because of field curvature and old motor style (slightly slower focusing than USM lenses). If you get a bad one - you have six years to return for repair, Tamron is vey responsive on their rebates - unlike you know who, and I understand on repair also - but I have never had to have one returned or repaired.
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2008
|
|
jvarszegi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 5, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3931
|
|
Review Date: Jul 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap for what it is supposed to be
|
|
Cons:
|
Not cheap for the performance actually delivered; sharpness, especially wide open; color cast; AF accuracy
|
|
|
My copy front-focused on two bodies, had a warm color cast, and just wasn't sharp at f/2.8 . This is the last time I fall prey to the hype over bargain lenses.
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2008
|
|
Deb0.friday
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 10, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $410.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp at f4 and down. Good focusing speed and excellent accuracy. Excellent performance for price!
|
|
Cons:
|
Begins to soften at 3.5 and wider. Noticeable Barrel distortion at 17mm. focusing motor is somewhat noisy. Contrast needs improvement.
|
|
|
Replaced the kit lens with this one. Very nice upgrade as general purpose. Image quality is excellent at most apertures and focal length. Contrast not as good as Canon glass.
Construction, focusing motor is what holds this unit back from being a 9 or 10. My first copy's outer lip broke and I had to return it. Service was slow, but they fixed it the first time. Would I recommend this lens for those who want the best quality on a budget? YES!!!
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2008
|
|
emandavi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 998
|
|
Review Date: Jul 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide Angle, fast aperture, works even on 10D or D60/D30 (Unlike Canon's EF-S lenses), and sharp! Price is perfect.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
This is the lens that gets used no matter what event I'm doing. And I own the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS, Canon 24-70 2.8L, Canon 200 2.8L, etc. Almost all my lenses are L lenses, and then I bought this one. It's fantastic. I didn't want to spend money on the Canon 17-40L, and I'm glad I didn't.
So now I've even bought the Tamron 70-200 2.8 lens, and I have no regrets!!!!!
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2008
|
|
Chester Le
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 26, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Jul 8, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $430.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp when focuses correctly
|
|
Cons:
|
inconsistent focusing
|
|
|
I use this on a D200. I've had two copies and both does not focus properly at 2.8 (especially at 17mm). How can I tell? I zoomed in, focus, lock and zoom back out to take the picture. The image is much sharper as a result. This only works well if your subject is stationary. Too bad since this lens has so much potential. BTW, I have the new version with the built-in motor. I borrowed a friend's older copy without the motor and the focus mechanism seems to be a little more consistent. It was slightly soft at 2.8 but not as much as this. I also didn't try to zoom in method on his. Unless you need to (D40, D60, etc), get the older copy while you still can.
|
|
|
Jul 8, 2008
|
|
B Stevens
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 13, 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jun 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp wide open, very sharp from corner to corner @f/5.6, very little distrotions, f/2.8 throughout the whole zoomrange, cheap, fast enough AF and a pretty solid feel.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very noisy AF, colours look a bit flat, no constant MF, nothing to bad for a serious beginner though.
|
|
|
This product is indeed recommended by me because of the following reasons:
This lens is very sharp zoomed out and zoomed in, sharp wide open in the center, and is very sharp from edge to edge when stopped down around f5.6.
There are very little distortions, nothing no one wouldn't expect from such a lens and nothing photoshop can't fix either.
The lens feels well build and the plastic hood clicks on more easily than two canon lenses i own, (100mm 2.8 usm macro and the 200mm 2.8L II USM)
Overal you get some very nice features for only 350 euro's!
But when trying to be and look more professioinal and for instance take a look at some pictures made with the Canon EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, i feel the colours could be more rich, more contrasty and life-like.
Maybe i am wrong, i did not have the chance to test them side by side and of course with photoshop this also can be pretty much corrected.
The price difference between the two makes it somewhat unfair to campare them with each other, i know.
Another downside MIGHT be that the AF (altough being fast) is also very noisy, when shooting an quiet performance or show of some sort the focus sound is deffinatly be heard by everyone around you.
No constant manual focus is a llittle downside too. Conclusion:
For serious beginners or not to high demanding folks this lens is Highly recommended!
Conclusion:
For serious beginners or not to high demanding folks this lens is Highly recommended!
But for semi-pro's or people who just want to go a step further, i gues the Canon EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is the only real alternative.
The 17-40 4L is very nice of course but not f/2.8 and the Canon EF 17-55mm IS USM is not build well enough, way to much of a dust sucker to cost that much.
And his cheaper brother 17-85mm has the same problem + more blur and colour distortions @17mm than the cheap 18-55mm kitlens!
happy buying!
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2008
|
|
TriDak Foto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 10, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 10, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. light, durable, fast and cheaper then it's well known competition!
|
|
Cons:
|
My only negative is it has no IS but I can live without it at this range.
|
|
|
When I first bought my Canon 40D last year the first lens I ordered was the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8IS. While it was a great lens and the image stabilization worked very well I was not thoroughly impressed with it and did not believe it was worth the $1000 I had paid.
After a couple of months of use I decided to sell my Canon and then made the switch completely to the Canon 10-22mm and bought the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 to compliment this lens figuring it was a better deal for my shooting needs.
It worked for quite a few months but I found I did not use the UWA as often as I had thought I would. BUT after using my first third party lens (Tamron) I was extremely impressed by it and I thought I would go back to my original focal length of the 17-50(5)mm range and get rid of the Tamron 28-75mm lens this time.
So I FINALLY bought this 17-50mm by Tamron! I knew it had rave reviews and expected it to be as nice as the 28-75mm but MAN WAS I IMPRESSED!
My copy is extremely sharp wide open and at all apertures! I don't hesitate to use it at f/2.8 in any situation! I never expected the IQ to be as good as it is with my copy and I now highly recommend this lens to anyone looking to get this focal length for their cropped cameras but wish to save the cash over the Nikkor and Canon.
It is fast as it is 2.8, well built but not to the degree of a Canon lens or Pro Nikon but believe me it is very durable and has some weight to it but not as much as that Canon! It is very sharp too! Maybe some copies have issues but if you can get a good copy of the lens, be glad you did!
It also comes with the hood unlike come models ... a longer warranty and I love Tamron's front caps.
Anyhow I highly recommend this lens if you need the focal length and can live without IS. I wish I had just bought this before messing around with the previous lenses.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2008
|
|
myam203
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 10, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1451
|
|
Review Date: Jun 4, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $425.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, nice build, constant f/2.8, cheap, sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
My copy is a bit soft at 2.8, but still acceptable (especially at the wide end of the focal range).
|
|
|
This is a great lens, and I think an incredibly decent alternative to the Nikon 17-55. Not to take anything away from the Nikon, because it's definitely a pro lens with a pro build delivering pro results, but you really can't take it anywhere without worrying like you can with this (price and weight).
The price is right, and I like being able to go to 17mm as opposed to 18mm in the cheaper lenses (I don't feel like I need anything wider for now). I wish it went to 70mm, but it is what it is, so I can't call that a negative. It focuses quickly, but probably not as fast as an AF-S lens, though I don't think focus speed is critical in this range anyway. Some might say it's a little noisy when focusing, but I barely notice it even in the most quiet of settings. It's also a little soft wide open, but pretty darn good by f/4, and excellent by f/5.6.
The build quality is good and sturdy, and the rubberized grip on the zoom ring is very comfortable (though I do have small hands). Basically, the quality is well matched to the cost of this lens.
In a practical sense, this is a go-everywhere lens that just barely fits in my little Lowepro shoulder bag when mounted on my D300 (I think it's a Lowepro Rezo 120). I couldn't say the same about the larger Nikon.
|
|
|
Jun 4, 2008
|
|
okaaycom
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 28, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $430.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price!, Lightweight, large aperture, great minimum focusing distance, no zoom creep
|
|
Cons:
|
Loud AF, no SWM/AF-S, lots of vignetting when wide open
|
|
|
Purchased this because I couldn't justify spending $1400 on the Nikon equivalent. I also read the reviews on here and they were for the most part great. It's so small, I couldn't believe how much bigger then Nikon 17-55 is compared to this. I'm very happy with this lens.
Wide aperture. Lightweight, small. Great for travelling. The image quality, from what I can tell is pretty good. There is quite a bit of vignetting when you take pictures at f/2.8, but some people like it. There's some distortion at 17mm, but can be expected.
The AF is loud.
The MFD is really good, I think. It can focus at about 10" from the sensor to the object. 4" from the tip of the lens at 50mm, and 6" from the tip of the lens at 17mm.
|
|
|
May 28, 2008
|
|
toguko
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 24, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 24, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
f/2.8, fast AF, starts from 17mm
|
|
Cons:
|
not sharp at f/2.8 in low light, 50mm not enough (70mm would be nice), not for full frame, IQ not perfect
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
187
|
365200
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
