 |
Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Usable F/2.8 at all focal lengths, Contrast, AF accuracy, Compact, Light-weight, Hood included
|
|
Cons:
|
None for the price
|
|
|
Got rid of EF 17-40 f/ 4LLL---, and purchased this gem from Tamron product range. My copy of EF 17-40 f/ 4L suffered from back focusing.
My copy of Tamron 17-50 f/ 2.8 is very sharp (corner to corner) full open at all focal lengths. The contrast and focusing accuracy are excellent. Build quality is just acceptable. Sturdier build compared to Tamron 28-75 f/ 2.8 (no wobbling/ no loose barrel).
It is a perfect walk around lens on my 350D body, covering all useful focal lengths from landscape to portrait. EF 17-40 f/ 4L was not fit for all-purpose due to its shorter tele-end and limited maximum aperture.
Colors are slightly warmer to my taste. The coating does not appear to be optimized. Images are slightly under-exposed, when compared to EF 50 f/ 1.4 in similar lighting conditions. However, I know that EF 50 f/ 1.4 belongs to film era and may not have heavy coating to combat flare/ ghosting of digital image sensors. AF noise is not much distracting but may be an issue at some places. AF is not as fast as USM. But I have not paid for it.
Highly recommended! But please check your copy before buying. Any lens (including Canon ‘L’) may suffer from quality issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
|
|
Review Date: Dec 8, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $870.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Build Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Image Quality
|
|
|
I purchased EF 17-40 f/4L one year ago, as an all-purpose lens on my 350D. I have been trying to get good images from this lens. But the images are not sharp and suffer from poor contrast. There is also problem of under-exposure at wider end, even after updating the camera firmware. EFS 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 (kit lens) is much superior to this ‘L’ lens in terms of image quality and exposure.
Recently, I visited a Canon service centre and they found problem of back focusing in my copy. It is to my great surprise that the ‘L’ lenses also suffer from poor quality control. I refused for re-calibration as I am not sure if this is risk free.
I am giving an overall rating of 3 only for its excellent build quality. And for image quality the rating is 0. I would have considered better rating if it were a non-‘L’ lens.
It is a good paperweight but very expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
