|
|
neilvandyke
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 174
|
|
Review Date: Sep 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
It has f/2.8, which is crucial for me. Overall good IQ (sharpness, color) for the price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Noticeable barrel distortion at wide end. Occasional purple fringing worse than anything I noticed even with Canon 18-55 II kit lens. Zoom ring backwards by Canon convention. Focus ring turns during AF. Possible slow zoom creep when carried pointed down. Kinda ugly and cheap-looking.
|
|
|
I got this as a wide zoom for modern dance photography in small studios and then photojournalism, on 1.6X crop bodies. It was substantially cheaper than a Canon 16-35/2.8 or even used Canon 17-35/2.8. I now carry it around my neck on my second body for event photojournalism, paired with a 70-200, and am pretty happy with this setup. I will probably upgrade the long zoom to 2.8 IS before upgrading this wide zoom.
|
|
 Sep 9, 2007
|
|
ghamden
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 81
|
|
Review Date: Sep 4, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $400.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent Lens
|
|
Cons:
|
NOne
|
|
|
Anorther Great Tamron Lens excellent
|
|
|
Sep 4, 2007
|
|
Joseph Hill
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Super sharp, quick focusing, light but well constructed
|
|
Cons:
|
Color not quite as saturated as I'd like but quickly remedied in PS.
|
|
|
This is a great lens. I'd never bought non-Canon glass before but now that the door is open I will not hesitate to so do again. Great as a walk-around or travel lens because it is relatively light but takes beautiful photos. And at 1/3 the price of Canon's 17-55 2.8!! (Who really *needs* IS in a wide angle lens anyway?)
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2007
|
|
Michiel Fokkem
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 24
|
|
Review Date: Aug 20, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, speed, price
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I have this lens now for about 6 months and I really like it. it took some difficulties to get one but in the end got it for a good price.
Image quality is very good. Full aperture is usable. There is distortion. But not more than on the competition and nothing ptlens can't handle.
The autofocus makes some noise but it has never bothered me.
I'm used to German build quality so this lens is a bit a disappointment. But for the price it can't be beat and the build quality is good enough and surely better then the canon kit lens it replaces. I just have to be a bit more careful i guess.
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2007
|
|
Peter Chung
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 31, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Aug 18, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $420.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, lightweight, came with hood
|
|
Cons:
|
Curved focal plane
|
|
|
I've been using the Tamron since April and has held up well as my daily walkaround lens. Image quality is excellent, AF motor is about as loud as my Canon 50mm f/1.8 II. (I started with the 50mm prime as my 1st lens.)
The curved focal plane of the lens is apparent from f/2.8-4 at 17mm. After discovering that quirk, I usually will stop down if I'm trying to get a deep subject in focus.
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2007
|
|
Ken Marshall
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 21, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 11, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp,great contrast and colour saturation,solid build,light.
|
|
Cons:
|
None from my perspective
|
|
|
I have just shot my first professional wedding with the lens and I have to say I am so happy I did. The photographs are tack sharp with great contrast and saturation. I cannot detect any significant distortion at either end of the zoom range. This is a great fast lens and at f2.8 throughout the zoom range an excellent choice for low light shooting.<p> I would highly recommend this lens.
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2007
|
|
Beau Arnold
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 845
|
|
Review Date: Aug 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great walk around for crop body
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
This lens is a real keeper. Compared to what I thought was sharp in the razr (Tamron 28-75) all I have to say is if I had to sell one the razr would have to go.
|
|
|
Aug 1, 2007
|
|
Siegfred
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 2, 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast focus, price, decent build, flare resistant good for low light etc....
|
|
Cons:
|
sound of focusing but it is fast.
|
|
|
none for now just all the good and positive side. I love this lens it is fast and sharp! I highly recommend this lens. I think the issue on quality control of this lens has been resolved now especially those lenses that is made in Japan and also for those assemble in China. you won't regret buying this lens.
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2007
|
|
Ryan Kolkovich
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $425.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp lens; constant f/2.8; price
|
|
Cons:
|
Autofocus is quite loud and not quite as fast as a USM lens
|
|
I received this as a christmas present from my fiance (of course I told her what I wanted). This lens is a great lens for the price. The lens is very sharp and it allows you to get the low light shots by having constant f/2.8 throughout the zoom range. The lens is actually sharper than my Canon 28-135 IS, which is why it is the lens that is on my camera most of the time.
Some people seem to report low light focus problems with it on digital rebels but I have not seen this issue on my 30D.
Most of the pics in these two sets were shot with this lens if you want to see some examples.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kolky/sets/72157600216144588/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kolky/sets/72157600123567858/
The other thing I like about this lens it that it came with a lens hood (take a hint here Canon).
Highly Recommended.
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2007
|
|
ssnap
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 438
|
|
Review Date: Jul 24, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, even at f2.8, great color and contrast, good build quality for plastic.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lack of AF-S, still not loud and not the same build quality as the Nikon 17-55
|
|
|
I purchased this lens for wedding and event photography and I love it. This lens sits on my camera all the time. Even at f2.8 I get beautiful sharp images that are crystal clear. I've tried other f2.8 zooms from Nikon, Sigma, and even the Tamron 28-75f2.8
The Tamron 17-50 I purchased is sharper than all the others I tried and definatly a bargin purchase under $500!
If you are planning on purchasing this lens I suggest taking it for a test spin and checking out the photo's at full size before making a final purchase. I did this because of all the issues I heard this lens has with over exposure on the Nikon flash system and because I wanted to make sure that 2.8 was usable. On the sigma and Tamron 28-75 I've used neither were usable at f2.8. The images were so soft they seemed out of focus. The copy I got of the 17-50 how ever is wonderful and worth every penny.
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2007
|
|
Wing Choo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 8, 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 8, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast. Quick.
|
|
Cons:
|
hunts in low light.
|
|
I just bought mine to use with my new Canon 400D, just as everyone recommended. However, the IQ of mine doesn't seem cracking like the images that i have seen taken. I'm not sure if it's my 400D or my copy of the 17-50mm.
I like that it's fast, but it seems to hunt very often, compared to normal USM lenses. Not too sure if i'm supposed to take it back and change it or i have wrong expectations after reading all the fantastic reviews here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9799874@N05/
can anyone take a look and tell me?
|
|
|
Jul 8, 2007
|
|
Wing Choo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 8, 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 8, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy. Hunts in low light
|
|
I just bought my pair of Tamron 17-50, after reading all the wonderful reviews. However, i'm not sure whether my copy is poor or the IQ is already at its best with my results. I had the impression that it would be sharper than what i got.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9799874@N05/
Can anyone take a look and comment?
|
|
|
Jul 8, 2007
|
|
tinke
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 18, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 371
|
|
Review Date: Jul 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp and comparatively lightweight.
I just got a 17-55 as a gift sent to me from a very well-meaning relative but will be selling it as this lens is just too good to give up and fits all my needs. I am extremely pleased. Read the Castleman review just below: My comments pertaining to review are that if you get a bad copy return it immediately for a replacement. I am not sure if I am overly fortunate but I got a stellar copy first time, and know several other owners of this Tammy with the same exact exerience. This is my only third party lens, and have several L's, both primes and zooms - so yes, you could call me picky. For the money I cannot think of anything better.
(PS: Mr. Castleman, really love and appreciate your reviews - keep 'em coming!)
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality is adequate, but could be better; for the money it is reasonable however.
|
|
|
For a crop cam it is a wonderful addition to any kit. Highly recommend!
|
|
|
Jul 7, 2007
|
|
squish
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 17, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 19
|
|
Review Date: Jul 2, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
low distortion, sharpness, contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
CA
|
|
|
My last Tamron lens (17-35mm f2.8-4 Di) was an impulse buy but turned out to be an outstanding lens. My only problem with it was the variable aperture and the focal range being a bit stunted (if shooting film as well this lens is definitely worth thinking about). So knowing what I know about the excellence of Tamron optics this lens was an obvious choice and I recently picked one up.
So far I'm very impressed with it. Mine is the MIJ version (made in Japan) and I haven't noticed any IQ/QC issues that I consider out of the ordinary. I consider the build to be very good but it would be great if this lens was sealed and don't mind the focus speed/noise at all.
The only thing that really lets this lens down is the higher than average CAs, especially at wide angle. This is not something the 17-35mm suffers from but it largely disappears when the lens is stopped down a little (to f/5.6 its mostly gone).
|
|
|
Jul 2, 2007
|
|
Marty Honea
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 19, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 35
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $439.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, Images
|
|
Cons:
|
No USM
|
|
|
I bought this lens a week ago. I was worried about getting a dud after reading reviews on here, and since this is my first non Canon lens. I must say I'm very impressed with the lens so far. Colors are super crisp and sharp, Very little if any distortion on my 10D. Auto focus is a little slower and noisier than my Canon USM lenses, but for half the price of Canon's USM version I can deal with it. 17mm @ F2.8 is much sharper than I expected.
I bought the lens for a trip out west I'm taking next month, and I'm looking forward to getting some good shots of the Vegas strip and of the Utah mountains with it.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2007
|
|
ghamden
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 81
|
|
Review Date: Jun 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $419.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent Lens crisp images great colors
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2007
|
|
