 |
|
|
mbyoungs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 16, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 60
|
|
Review Date: May 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, Color, Focus Speed
|
|
Cons:
|
I haven't found any
|
|
|
I bought the Promaster labeled version of the lens.
I compared it to a Canon 17-40L and could not find enough difference between the two to justify the price difference. Besides the Canon is only an f4.
I also tried it with a Tamron 1.4x tc behind and beside homeplate, worked extremely well very little IQ loss.
This lens beats my 50/1.8 all to heck.
Mike
|
|
 May 12, 2008
|
|
Spock lonewolf
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 9, 2008
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: May 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, fast, sharp - if you have the right piece
|
|
Cons:
|
Major vignetting if you use more than 1 filter, unequal production quality, AF noise
|
|
|
If you're lucky, you'll get perfect lens at first time. If not, you might be dissapointed and have to try more pieces before you get the right one.
I'd recommend to go to the store where they have more pieces of this lens and try which one is the best. If you won't, you could easily get some with strong FF/BF or something like that – hovewer this can be solved with Tamron service.
I've got perfect piece first time and I like it. I's sharp, but the most important fact - for lens this fast (which I need), I'd have to pay much more if bought from Canon.
The only drawbacks are vignetting (or even clipping image at 17 mm) when using screw-in plus Cokin/Lee filters and quite noisy AF when it have to refocus through the whole range.
|
|
|
May 9, 2008
|
|
finalcut
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 8, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
|
I bought this lens for my Nikon D80 and all I can say is that I will never buy any tamron anymore. I've had problems with my old 18-200 that been replaced atfer 2 months in their shop and now my 17-50 that has front focus problem that has been in their shop for more than 3 months now!
No more tamron for me, no thanks
|
|
|
May 8, 2008
|
|
jlin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 68
|
|
Review Date: May 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $430.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
solid build, SHARP!, fast AF, not sigma color, price!
|
|
Cons:
|
zoom ring is reverse of canon's, noisy AF, barrel distortion @17mm, in that order - not f2? these negs are being a bit picky!
|
|
|
this is a lens i can easily recommend - esp. for beginning photographers looking for a kit lens alternative
very sharp lens and also great for the low light work i tend to do (stages / ballrooms)
focusing is fast enough for me but isn't USM, surprisingly, it hunts less than my copy of the canon 85 1.8 in low light
great colors - a bit on the warm side though
very reasonable pricing - i've never owned the canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM, but for this price, the tamron lens was just right and delivered more than i expected!
i wish there was a bit more reach than 50mm, but it's not a 17-50 for nothing...
oh, and handy front lens cap design, esp. when you have the hood on =]
|
|
|
May 5, 2008
|
|
crabdevil
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 18, 2008
Location: Thailand
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 18, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $375.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
fast, sharp, hood included, price
|
|
Cons:
|
quite strong CA, reverse Canon zoom rotation
|
|
|
I bought it for my best friend's wedding photo. In the first trip I didn't expect it too much but a little bit upset when saw CA result on my PC. White T-shirt in Thailand's afternoon sunshine create visible purple rim.
Accuracy of AF is acceptable for me, at sunset shot I never miss the target. Fact is AF noise is quite lound and sharp.
The most CONs for this is zoom rotating direction was opposite to Canon lens. Even some weeks passed but I still belong to Canon's feeling.
At 50 mm. f/2.8 is not that very shap (but still sharp) to stick at f/4 is much more better.
Color is not that sweet as Canon's portrait prime lens.
Anyway compare to Canon's flagship EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM which 3x pricy without hood in the box. I prefer this lens and keep other 2x money to find something real for another spot (L prime or ultra wide zoom) Up until now, I would say it was optimized standard zoom for APS-C.
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2008
|
|
jay1hawker
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jun 23, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 2771
|
|
Review Date: Mar 15, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, 2.8 aperture, quick focussing, like the extra 10mm vs. the 17-40mm Canon. Photos are sharp, plus I can use all my 67mm filters from my Mamiya 645 lenses from years back.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
I had the 17-40mm lens for a few years and was going to
go the route of the 16-35mm lens, but wanted something
a little less pricey. Got the 17-50mm 2.8 lens before
we went on our recent vacation. Was planning on giving
it to my daughter for her use and enjoyed it so much,
she still gets it, I ordered another one. Here is a link to
a few pix we shot with it...
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b315/im4indiana/Arizona%202008/750Sedona3.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b315/im4indiana/Arizona%202008/750Sedona2.jpg
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2008
|
|
Peter Szuhai
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 11, 2007
Location: Hungary
Posts: 48
|
|
Review Date: Mar 13, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Inexpensive, lightweight, fast, sharp, excellent IQ, great build
|
|
Cons:
|
Tight zoom ring, a little bit of vignetting wide open but I like the effect
|
|
|
I have the lens for 3 weeks now and I did not take it off of the camera. I was looking for a replacement of the kit lens and this thing is everything I wanted. It fits my (low) budget and produces amazing contrast and sharpness. I own the 70-200 f/4 and they compliment each other perfectly. The two cover my needs between 17 & 200mm under $1000 nothing can beat that.
I was worried about the focus noise but it is not that bad at all as one might think reading all the complaints. I got used to it in five minutes. My copy has no focusing issues as far as I can tell - I did shoot a bunch of tests with it.
I have no regrets, highly recommended
|
|
|
Mar 13, 2008
|
|
gboccuti
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 15, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, overall IQ, color saturation, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Noise, front-focus
|
|
|
Bought this camera a few weeks ago and was pleased with the focus speed and accuracy. The focus motor sound does take some time to get used to but I didn't see it as a major issue. I purchased the lens because of the sharp anture of this glass and it lived up to my expectations. I returned the lens this week though as it had a front-focus problem. Also decided against a replacement as I'm going to hold-off and pull the trigger on the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS (which is what I really wanted). If you are looking for a wide zoom with great sharpness and IQ without spending alot of money, this is recommended. Much better than any kit lens on a crop camera..
Always test your lenses before the return period expires...!
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2008
|
|
Derek Sellars
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 26, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price,Image Quality!
|
|
Cons:
|
None!
|
|
|
After spending a fortune on L glass including the 24-105 IS and the 70-200 2.8 IS, i was looking for a cheaper alternative wide angle than the 17-40L or the 17-55 IS,
I have previously owned the 17-40L and liked it but found it a little short, and the f4 although not bad 2.8 would be better,
After reading the reviews of the Tamron 17-50 2.8 here i took the plunge and boy was i ever pleased i did,
Build quality is excellent, smooth operation in use, and totally
incredible image quality, sharpness is just astounding!
I can honestly say that this lens produces better images out of camera than the 17-40L i owned.........at less than half the price!
Yes the focus whines a little but it's no problem and it's quick anyway,
If you are thinking of getting one of these........GET ONE Now!
|
|
|
Jan 9, 2008
|
|
leicar8
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 6, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
Photography expert Geoffrey Crawley in England produced an evaluation article of this lens in Amateur Photographer and concluded that it is one hell of an outstanding lens. Based on his findings, I bought it from B&H and it is indeed that! I almost always use Leica cameras and lenses but I needed a handy zoom lens that would work with my Canon Rebel XT and this is was definitely the one to buy.
|
|
|
Jan 6, 2008
|
|
Jeff Spain
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 4, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, weight, sharp photos
|
|
Cons:
|
odd filter size, vignetting
|
|
|
This lens is vastly underrated. I have taken over 20,000 photos with this lens and I am amazed at how sharp they are. One of the sharpest zooms I have ever used. The only other zoom lens that can challenge this is my 35-70 mm Nikon.
The newer AF-S, VR lens are better, but at 2 or 3 times the cost. Wide open, the Bokeh is neutral. Images are very sharp from F4 on. Wide open this lens does have vignetting issues. However, with CS3 this is easily fixed using RAW files.
Odd filter size made be buy step up rings, but otherwise I am extremely happen with this lens and I am a hard core Nikon user.
|
|
|
Jan 4, 2008
|
|
redii
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 530
|
|
Review Date: Dec 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, utility, weight, performance.
|
|
Cons:
|
Noise, focus ring, backwards zoom.
|
|
|
I have struggled to find a good all purpose lens to carry on my camera. The 17-40 lack just a speck of reach and only is a 4.0 appeture.
The 24-70L is HEAVY and I don't want to risk bumps and drops as I use it for portrait work.
The 17-55 IS is big and expensive too.
All other 3rd party lenses get less than stellar reviews on most web sites.
This lens has turned out to be an excellent option. Build is sufficient but weight is not too much. The price is affordable and I bought second hand from a fellow FMer.
Focus has been fast and spot on except for the few times my big fat fingers have interfered with the focus ring which spins as the camera focuses. The lens forgives an refocuses quickly.
The other slightly annoying quirk here is the focus ring is backwards. Gee Tamron, what were you thinking?
Sharpness is excellent for the price. I can pixel peep and differentiate it from my L glass. BUT NOT BY MUCH!
This lens has been on my camera almost non stop for the last few weeks.
This lens is a winner and should debunk some of the 3rd party predjudice we all seem to foster.
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2007
|
|
Dawei Ye
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 14, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 3562
|
|
Review Date: Dec 17, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $480.00
|
|
Pros:
|
A very versatile workhorse lens for me. IQ is very good, don't let elitists bullcrap you that 3rd party glass sucks, Tamron lenses like this one are very, very good.
|
|
Cons:
|
For the price it is hard to fault, but I would have liked improved focusing system including Full Time Manual (FTM) and a bit more sharpness wide open.
|
|
|
This is another review from me, I previously gave it an 8 in an earlier review, but if I could I would give it a 10.
It is an absolute work horse for me and performs shot after shot. It is on my 400D almost 100% of the time and it has never failed on me and never given me a crap shot when I have done everything correctly on my end.
Focusing is loud, whiny and not as fast as USM, especially in low light, but
IQ is excellent, not perfect but even a sharpness freak like myself is satisfied with the results. For newbies like me, skill is the limiting factor with this lens in terms of sharpness. With practice you will see your results becoming sharper and sharper. My sharpest shots look crisp even at full size (100%). Things like landscape shots get a little blotchy but that is due to the limitations of the sensor too. I am nevertheless happy with IQ on this lens, especially given the price. I'm not afraid to say it but IQ rivals some Canon "L" glass.
Highly Recommended Lens until you can afford/want a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS
It is also a very useful zoom range for the APS-C sized sensor that it was designed for. Perfect for everything except perhaps if you are in a small room and need ultra wide angle or taking photos of birds. I have taken very good group shots, portraits, landscape, buildings, everything with this lens.
Highly Recommended Lens. Make sure you get a good copy though, or get it calibrated/exchanged if it isn't sharp and focus isn't accurate. My copy is almost as sharp as the 50mm f/1.8 II at most apertures (a tad softer, but only noticeable when viewing zoomed in).
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2007
|
|
Conrad Tan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 8, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 27589
|
|
Review Date: Dec 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $428.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp Image in most all focal lengths. Great price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Almost unbearable noise from auto-focus.
|
|
|
I have had this lens for 3 months now. It is my primary walk-around lens. It takes great shots 99% of the time. Low light is sometimes an issue. Autofocus is noisy as heck. But for the price, it's a winner.
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2007
|
|
Freemont
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 28, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 393
|
|
Review Date: Dec 11, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
price, speed, weight, focal length
|
|
Cons:
|
build quality is not as good as others but i have no problem with that, AF is loud
|
|
|
when compared to the alternative canon 17-40mm f /4.0L:
the good:
10mm longer
the 17mm wide end is actually wider than canon's 17mm wide end
lighter
at f/2.8, faster
cheaper price wise
the bad:
build qualitiy
no USM, semi loud AF
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2007
|
|
corndog
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Sep 4, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 3899
|
|
Review Date: Dec 8, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness. Bokeh. Weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Build.
|
|
|
This lens is absolutely worth every penny. Tamron makes a lot of "junk", this one is a gem. People complain about the af, maybe my expectations were low, but the af is actually pretty good.
Unless money flows like water in your house, there is no reason to pay an extra $700 for the Nikkor version.
The build really is a little wimpy, as with all lenses, avoid contact with the ground.
Not much to say, it's a great lens, don't think twice about buying one. My copy was excellent, hopefully they all are!
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
187
|
364733
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
