 |
|
|
oldshutterhand
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 24, 2012
Location: Hungary
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 25, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, in middle apertures very sharp, nice colours, constant f2,8 aperture at all range
|
|
Cons:
|
autofocus little noisy, sometimes not precise, built quality can be little more expensive looking
|
|
Tamron makes a very good job with this lens. This lens is a very good compromise in many ways: price, brightness, weight. I would recommend this lens. Honestly I want the lens at f2,8 to be sharper, but it is reasonable.
My review with samples about the lens can be found here:
http://oldshutterhand.com/equipment-reviews/tamron-17-50-review/
|
|
 Apr 25, 2013
|
|
girod199
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 20, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 20, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $420.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Tack sharp, even wide open, compact, light, fast 2.8 aperture.
|
|
Cons:
|
Loud annoying autofocus, stiff zoom ring.
|
|
|
This was my favorite lens on my Canon 40D. I have upgraded to a 5D Mark II and I really miss this lens. I found this lens to be very sharp. I owned the 18-55 kit lens and the 28-135 lens and this lens blows them away. I also own the 70-200mm f/2.8L, and the 17-50mm is not as sharp but it comes close!!! Even wide open at 2.8 it is very sharp. It is very small and light. When you zoom to 50mm, the lens doubles in size, but it is still quite small. When you focus, the front element does not rotate. The zoom ring is a little stiff and the focus ring is not stiff enough for my taste but you can live with it. I use manual focus 95% of the time and this is a good thing with this lens. The autofocus motor makes a zipping noise when focusing. You can live with it but if you are used to silent focusing lenses you will get annoyed. The build quality is solid. It is plastic but doesn't feel cheap. I would highly recommend this lens. The image quality cannot be matched in this price range. I found this lens to be tack sharp but some people say this lens isn't so sharp so there must be some quality control issues. Even as a pixel peeper I was VERY happy with this lens. Here are some shots taken with the Tamron 17-50mm on a Canon 40D.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/girod199/6553061821/in/photostream">http://www.flickr.com/photos/girod199/6553061821/in/photostream</a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/girod199/6361964605/in/photostream">http://www.flickr.com/photos/girod199/6361964605/in/photostream</a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/girod199/6044349571/in/photostream">http://www.flickr.com/photos/girod199/6044349571/in/photostream</a>
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012
|
|
Damian_pro3
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 20, 2011
Location: Poland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
price, size, nice build quality, good color rendition, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
loose lens hood, extends while zooming, af could be faster and more accurate
|
|
One ot those lenses, when you clearly see what you paid for. Of course, it could be more sharp, better built or have a better af, but at this price tag you won't find anything better. I've compared it with Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and Tamron is a clear winner. Before its purchase, I was a bit concerned about its build quality, but my worries were gone after the first test. The lens is quite heavy which gives it nice, solid feeling, rubber rings operate smoothly (maybe the focusing ring isa bit too loose, but it's a hardly noticeable flaw).
When it comes to the optical quality, there is nothing to complain about. Sharpness is pretty good straight from f/2.8, corners are also decent. Of course, when I compare it with my Canon 200mm f/2.8 L, there is a big difference, but again - try to buy a better wide angle lens at similar price tag. Recently I sold this lens and bought a Tokina 16-28, which is much better lens in all aspects, but it's also much more expensive. All in all, after 3 years of using Tamron 17-50 I can recommend you this lens or if you can spend few bucks more, its younger brother with optical stabilisation (great thing for filming).
Samples:
http://www.pro3photo.pl/#/gallery/8/19/
http://www.pro3photo.pl/#/gallery/2/97/
http://www.pro3photo.pl/#/gallery/2/50/
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2012
|
|
preachercoach
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: Oct 18, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $342.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp with very good color rendition. Very crisp very good contrast. Sharp even at 2.8 with slight softness in corners. Very very good for landscape, portraits. Very good price for what you get. Surprisingly so.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens hoods seems to always be loose. It stays on but is not jam tight on lens. Shaky.
|
|
|
I am not generally a poster of reviews. I read reviews and make my decision to buy from what I've read. I just finished took some more shots outside and nothing special but the colors were so so right on I had to come in and try and spread the word about this lens. I am not a professional by any means. I shoot landscape and some sports. I have owned the Canon 24 2.8 which is a good lens but this Tamron beats it hands down. I own the Yashica/Contax 28 2.8 which is sharp also but I like the contrast better with the Tamron 17-50 Canon mount. I own the Canon 200 2.8 Mk11 also and this is just as sharp. I will never sell my 200 2.8 unless extreme circumstances.. Keep in mind I have the Canon Mount. I have heard different reviews concerning the Nikon version, VC and non Vc.. Also there there are two different location for the making of the Tamron. Japan and Taiwan and it is reported that Taiwan doesn't have the Quality control of the Japanese offering of the very nice piece of glass.. Buy
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2011
|
|
Alkatize
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 19, 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 20, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $380.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp, Nice Focal Range, Aperture of 2.8, 67mm Filter Thread (Also have 70-200 F4 which has 67mm)
|
|
Cons:
|
Barrel Extends, Only can be used for Crop Cameras (Non-FF lens) Stiff Zoom, Noisy AF
|
|
|
Other than a few minor cons, the lens is amazing. Great for events and landscape work. 2.8 allows a lot of light a lot more flexibility.
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2011
|
|
srugina
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 6, 2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 39
|
|
Review Date: Sep 20, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, sharpness, focus
|
|
Cons:
|
a bit slow focusing at night, build quality
|
|
I have been using this lens since 2007 and I am still happy with the photos. The color, the sharpness, the focus and I love the fact that it has 2.8 aperture.
I use it on most of my commercial shoots and event shoots, as well as 90% of my studio photos.
The only problems I have had with it is that the rubber grip of the zoom came loose two years ago, but I fixed it with superglue (it might have been because of too much moisture, I was camping on the sea shore for some 10 days at the time).
Overall, it is a very good lens for its price, I highly recommend it!
All the best and happy shooting,
Sandra
https://www.facebook.com/sandrarugina
http://sandrarugina.eu/
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2011
|
|
ohericcc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 15, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Jul 2, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $330.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, good bang for buck, f/2.8, good build,
|
|
Cons:
|
vignetting on wide end, noisy autofocus
|
|
|
I've had this lens for about a year and it really is good bang for it's buck. Looking at comparisions online, I've decided to go with the non-VC version because it was sharper. For sharpness, this lens does not disappoint. Stopping down from f/2.8 doesn't make too much of a difference because it's already sharp wide open with slightly blurry corners
The f/2.8 aperture definitely helps in lowlight situations and produces pretty decent bokeh!
The only thing I would have to complain about is the noisy autofocus though. But just because it's noisy doesn't mean it is slow! Pretty fast and accurate, but feels slow because of the noise.
This is definitely a good alternative for the lousy 18-55 IS kit lens and the very expensive Canon 17-55 f/2.8 (if you are on a budget)
|
|
|
Jul 2, 2011
|
|
AncientPC
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 7, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 6, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
- build quality
- sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
- barrel distortion on wide end
- noticeable vignette at f/2.8
|
|
|
This is a review of version 1 of the lens without VC.
The size and heft of this lens is great when paired with my Nikon D300. The included petal hood is reversible for storage and contains a ribbed, matted finish on the inside.
Image quality is great on this lens, tack sharp center at f/2.8 with some softness in corners, but completely fine by f/4. However there is also some minor vignetting when shooting at f/2.8 and barrel distortion on the wide angle of the lens (17mm - 22mm).
My experience with the build quality with the lens is fantastic. This lens is usually suggested as an alternative to the pro Canon/Nikon f/2.8 zoom equivalents but my lens has been through plenty.
I have dropped my camera lens first (with battery grip, hood reversed) 6' on a parking lot pavement. The reversed hood suffered some road rash, but the lens is otherwise fine.
This lens is not considered weathered proofed, but I have gone mountain hiking with it a few times. It has weathered through torrential rain and caked in the mud up to 8 hours.
Solid lens build, paid a great price (before weak dollar and resulting price adjustment), great image quality with some manageable drawbacks.
|
|
|
Jun 6, 2011
|
|
Berschwinger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 8, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 358
|
|
Review Date: Mar 14, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $315.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
f2.8 zoom in a compact size for 1/3 the price of the Nikon.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus not quite as fast as AF-S.
|
|
|
Great bang for your buck. This is a f2.8 zoom that goes toe to toe with the Nikon equivalent. It is significantly smaller than the Nikon also, which makes for easier packing. Mine does not have the built in motor and focuses much faster than the BIM and VC versions (and much more quietly).
The filter size is a bit oddball - would have preferred another 77mm to match my other lenses. Of course this would go against the whole small package idea, so you can't have everything. Great purchase - you won't regret it.
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2011
|
|
asamimasa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 196
|
|
Review Date: Feb 7, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb sharpness for the price, great upgrade from a kit lens, fast to focus
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy AF motor, bit of distortion
|
|
|
My favorite crop lens alongside the Sigma 30. If I were to have all of my gear stolen and had to go back to crop, I'd go for those two lenses instantly.
Build quality isn't the best, but it's good enough for most people.
It's AF motor is pretty loud, but it actually does focus pretty quickly.
|
|
|
Feb 7, 2011
|
|
upsideBackward
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, bright, small, light, CHEAP
|
|
Cons:
|
noisy
|
|
|
I strongly disagree with some of the reviews here that trash this lens especially since they almost dissuaded me from buying it.
I just bought a 7d and got this lens for it. I considered a variety of L lenses and the Canon efs 17-55 but ultimately choose this based on all the positive things I had read and the crazy price.
Initially I thought it wasn't so sharp until I realized I was seeing motion blur or camera shake or the focus was off. Once I started to get more familiar with the camera and figured out the settings that worked for my shooting style, I started to see extremely sharp results. In fact, I was seeing pics of my son taken from 4 or 5 feet at 17mm where i could literally count the eyelashes.
Furthermore, I was able to compare it to Canon's very expensive 16-35 (or whatever the long focal length is) taking shots of the same subject in the same light and position on the same camera, and to my suprise, at the widest focal length the Tamron was quite a bit sharper. There is a small possibility that something other than lens sharpness contributed to this result, such as camera shake since i didn't have a tripod, but I couldn't find any sign of any. Whatever the case, being anywhere close to a lens that is many times more expensive is pretty good value.
I have also had some trouble getting focus locked in low light, but then it also happened with the Canon. The difference is that the Canon searches quietly whereas the Tamron screeches CANT FOCUS as it travels through its focus range. This is acceptable to me unless i was in a church in the middle of a wedding ceremony. Of course for this price there has to be compromise somewhere and I'd rather have noise than fuzzy pictures.
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2011
|
|
mohitkrishna
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2011
Location: India
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 8, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp in outdoor settings, very good from f3.5/24mm onwards
|
|
Cons:
|
soft at f2.8, difficult to focus in low light conditions, slow auto focus
|
|
|
When I first started searching for a wide angle multipurpose zoom lens, I shortlisted Canon 18-200mm IS, Canon 18-55mm IS, Canon 17-50mm F2.8 USM, Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 & Tamron 17-50mm F2.8. I read various expert reviews, user reviews and lens comparisons on the internet. Despite very good reviews, Canon 17-50mm F2.8 USM was striked out as it did not fit the pocket. Canon 18-200mm IS & Canon 18-55mm IS were rated average and inferior to any constant f2.8 spec lens in low light conditions. Though, there were various comments w.r.t. non Canon lens like they have slow Autofocus and are noisy, in the end I decided to go for a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 for its constant f number. The model didnot support Optical Image Stabilisation, but it was the best bargain for my moderate budget. There were certain performance related issues listed in the forums with non-Japan manufactured lens, so I purchased a Made in Japan piece.
My experience with the lens is mixed. The build is sturdy and feels good to hold. The zoom ring is a bit stiff and it has not eased with use. The lens is excellent in good light conditions and give sharp photos. However, in low light conditions it struggles with autofocus. At 17mm / f2.8, even with manual focus in low light conditions, it is very difficult to get a properly focussed photo. At 17mm, barrel distortion is noticeable. From f3.5 / 24mm onwards, the results are consistently sharp. With crop factor of 1.6 for my Canon 1000D, focal length of 24 mm actually translates to 38mm and it doesnot remain a wide angle lens in enclosed spaces with poor lighting, as one would want to. Similarly at f2.8, the photos are not consistently sharp and so I avoid f2.8, the very reason that guided me to buy the lens. The autofocus is a bit noisy and slow, however the Canon counterpart with Image Stabilisation and USM motor is 3 times costlier, so no regrets. Initially I struggled with this lens. However, now I have adopted to it and use it with confidence.
|
|
|
Jan 8, 2011
|
|
mr500cm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 25, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Nov 30, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp, great warranty and a great price and a constent f2.8!
|
|
Cons:
|
None yet.
|
|
|
Wow, I have this lens for five years and its my main candid lens when shooting weddings/bar mitzvahs. Its cheap compared to Nikon glass and very sharp. The AF is a tad slow but maybe I'm being too picky.
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2010
|
|
Leftimage
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $360.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build Quality, Image sharpness, color rendering, wide angle ability, price, fast AF, inclusion of hood, 7 year warranty.
|
|
Cons:
|
MF ring, AF reliability and loudness, the fact it's not a Canon. APS-C only
|
|
(I should point out my copy AF'd perfectly out of the box; if working as it should, the AF will simply creep a little in low light, and not do so well with minor adjustments. Otherwise it works great. It's safe to say really disgusted users were dealing with a ''bad'' copy, which has been recognized in early-production models. Mine is a 2010 and works as it should)
_____________________________________________________
So, like many of you, I was looking to replace the soft-as-heck-but-still-good-value 18-55 IS kit lens that came on my Canon body (a t2i). After considering the 17-85, 17-40L, Sigma equivalent and, to a lesser degree, 15-85 and 17-55IS (both above my $ but still looked at), I chose the Tammy.
Impressions:
- Build: excellent quality, feels more metal than plastic, great zoom ring, cheap manual ring, GREAT weight and dimensions for smaller bodies (t1i to 7d sized). Makes 18-55 look like a farce, betters 17-85 and sigmas. Most similar, albeit slightly inferior, to 17-55 and 15-85) but hood and caps are superior.
-Functionality: great zooming (smooth turning and ring feels great (dampened)), only 17-40L zoomed as smoothly imo, focusing system is so-so, it's cons being inconsistent precision, oddly placed manual ring/switch and some creeping in low-light. Most annoying sound of AF makes us forget it is generally very fast and efficient. Particularly for travel and casual shooting, I found the AF satisfactory. 2.8 aperture speaks for itself, it's amazing how it contributes to shooting options.
-Image Quality: Breathtaking, period. Even with strong expectations I expected less. Bright, crisp, sharp as tack, lush colors, you name it. Most impressive was this lens' sheer width (almost sure it goes to 16!) and performance from 17-35. CA, vignetting and barrel distortion all hardly an issue (unlike kit lens). A touch stopped down gives terrific corner sharpness!! IQ advantage over the competition was so obvious I could confirm it in the camera store. I couldn't believe how it easily outperformed Canon's 17-40L and 17-85 at the same aperture settings. Only the 15-85 and 17-55IS seemed to perform a touch better above 35mm (same apertures)
Conclusion: If you're an objective enough shopper, then you'll fully appreciate this lens. From my testing perspective, it was most baffling when comparing to 17-40L to think that this lens was below 500$. Put a Canon name-tag on it and it would be the king of the consumer coop, quite simply; it's better than 18-55, 17-85, Sigma lenses in every respect, better than 17-40 in IQ, as good as 15-85 in IQ (sometimes better) and build, only slightly inferior to 17-55 (though the smaller size and price are nice). No illusions here, the 16-35 2.8L destroys them all (I tested it for fun)
If you have to have the Canon brand, don't buy this lens. Otherwise, buy this lens. Even with a handsome budget, unless you already own all of the lenses you've considered, I would still recommend the Tamron over the 17-55IS (price difference = a 70-200mm f4 L, or even a 50mm 1.4 + 85mm 1.8!!) I mean, the 17-55 doesnt even have the advantage of working on a full-body.
_____________________________________________________
Here are some shots I took with the 17-50 and a T2i (keep in mind the reduced quality from JPEG conversion)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5197311653/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5195456460/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5191203770/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5178917909/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5113324062/
Oh and here's an interesting comparison on the digital-picture charts (Glaring IQ superiority to 17-40L) :
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2
__________________________
Bravo Tamron, for a great lens.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2010
|
|
cburdick1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 4, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Nov 8, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $425.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Low price, good build quality, 6 year warranty, awesome customer service, great image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
No image stability in this model, but I find that I don't really need it.
|
|
|
I purchased the 17-50 in June of 2009 and I love this little lens. It is sharp, focuses quickly and provides me with great backgrounds at all focal lengths. This is a great step up from the 18-55 kit lens that comes with many of the Canon crop body cameras.
As for the noisy focusing, I can say that I do not find it a problem. Sure, it isn't as quiet as the USM in my Canon 10-22, but that lens is damn near SILENT when focusing. The Tamron isn't silent, but it's not like "Robocop" as one reviewer said. I take lots of candids of family and friends and no one has remarked at the AF noiso of the lens. Look at it this way: point and shoot cameras make a bunch of noise when zooming and focusing and this lens is no louder than any of those. Sure, during a quiet wedding ceremony it might be a nuisance, however if you are a pro, then you are going to have L glass and not this lens... if you are a guest at the wedding, put your camera down and enjoy the ceremony and shoot candids during the reception.
|
|
|
Nov 8, 2010
|
|
Fastkids
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 17, 2010
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice selective focus. Very good in low light (F2.8)
|
|
Cons:
|
Small AF/MF switch
|
|
I bought this lens to replace my Nikkor 18-55 kit lens. I should have done that earlier.
It's a great lens which gives you very nice images in low light situations. It has a very nice DOF (see my 2 first shot examples)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27466057@N08/5094071893/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27466057@N08/5094071511/
I see lot's of people compaining about the noisy AF. I can't say it's noisy.... Yes it's not completly silent, but it does not make that much noise to me. I can use it during weddings without people really 'hearing' it.
Its razor sharp and the focus just as fast as the kit lens.
Only down side until now (just 2 days my property): Very little AF/MF switch. I have big fingers 
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
187
|
364696
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
