 |
|
|
Jman13
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 17281
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $429.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, high IQ at all apertures, excellent bokeh, good color and contrast, smooth zoom mechanism, price
|
|
Cons:
|
plastic build, rotating focus ring during AF
|
|
The Tamron is an oustanding lens for a little bit of money. I have been wanting a fast standard zoom for a while, and after waiting forever for the Tokina 16-50, I decided to just get the Tamron.
Images are sharp straight from f/2.8 at all focal lengths. The corners are sharp at f/2.8 at 17mm, and while slightly soft in the corners at 35mm and 50mm, they sharpen right up to match the center by f/4. It's critically sharp at f/4, and f/5.6. Truly astounding IQ.
Color and contrast are quite nice...nothing amazing, but certainly not lacking. Bokeh is surprisingly nice for a short zoom lens.
Autofocus has been accurate for me, and it's quite fast, though a bit loud. The focus ring turns during autofocus.
The build is solid, with no wobble, but the lens is almost entirely plastic on the exterior. The plastic does not seem to be on par with Canon's higher end plastics. This is really my only complaint...Tamron really needs a pro-level build, and they don't have it. The zoom and focus rings do have a nice, soft grippy rubber on them which is quite pleasant.
Overall, I am very happy with this lens. It's optically stunning, and the ability to just choose an aperture solely on the DOF needs of that shot is very nice. I don't even think twice about using f/2.8, as the image quality is already very high wide open. Gone are the days of stopping down to f/8 just for sharpness. 
|
|
 Apr 1, 2007
|
|
toma7
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 31, 2007
Location: Austria
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, light, good walkaround lens, price, image quality, f/2,8
|
|
Cons:
|
noisy, plastic, some CA
|
|
some examples (without tripod in low light conditions)
www.pbase.com/toma7/antelope_canyon
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2007
|
|
Indo Kasera
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 5, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 40
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2007
|
|
poisonpill
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1952
|
|
Review Date: Mar 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $380.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp. Great image quality. Compact and light!
|
|
Cons:
|
I dont like how practically the entire body is a zoom ring! Makes it annoying to remove the lens. Using the lock is one step too many when it's just plain unnecessary to make the zoom ring so large. Also no internal motor (AFS) which makes the focusing a tad noisier.
|
|
|
I was reading here and there on several forums about this lens. I was extremely skeptical at first as I always equated Tamron with the stinkiest of the big 3 third party lenses (Sigma & Tokina being the other two). However I saw a review site with the MTF curves and they were astounding. Then I saw a guy's in-depth comparison between this Tamron and the stalwart Nikkor 17-55mm. To my surprise they were both equal!
The Nikon 17-55mm was of course almost triple the price of this Tamron. Sure it may be better built, but I could buy three Tamrons for that price. Also I don't know how you shoot, but I could do without having Nikon's 10 pound lens on the front of my camera -- especially at this walk-around focal length!
My first wedding with this lens had me shocked. Shocked that I had to hit a whole lot of photos with a layer of blurring because they were too sharp. Seriously, out-of-camera photos looked like I had already applied an unsharp mask to them.
Corner sharpness is not 100% perfect, but neither is the Nikon's 17-55mm. It would be unusual for this focal length to have edge to edge sharpness anyway.
Bokeh is great. No complaints there.
As I wrote on top, I have no idea why Tamron makes the whole body of the lens a zoom ring. It really makes swapping out lenses harder than it needs to be. I'm sure once I get used to using the zoom lock it won't be a problem, but for now it's a bit annoying.
Anyway, highly recommended.
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2007
|
|
godfreyz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1171
|
|
Review Date: Mar 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $409.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp right out of the box.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
Very sharp lens. It is a little noisy focussing but not bad enough to be annoying. Great lens for the price.
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2007
|
|
yido
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 812
|
|
Review Date: Mar 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $430.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Optics and price
|
|
Cons:
|
so so build feel, AF noisy
|
|
|
As said, great optics with sharp center and corners. Good control of CA.
Build quality is so so, AF is fast but noisy.
Definitely worth the cost if optics if your main concern.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2007
|
|
traveler
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 4011
|
|
Review Date: Mar 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $435.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast and accurate to focus
Nice light but solid build
Amazing price for pro optics
|
|
Cons:
|
not a SWM but it focuses so fast I don't notice
|
|
|
I was fortunate to get my D200 around the same time this lens was released. I sold off a 18-200VR as it simply was not great enough for me in the corners. I decided to go with a 17-50mm range lens and complement it with a 70-300vr. My decision was a good one and has worked out nicely. The 17-50 f2.8 XR DI is instant to focus, exposes correctly, and behaves perfectly in every other way. I certainly see NO compelling reason to pay the $1200 for the Nikon equivalent as it has NO real performance benefit over this model. I tried them both in store and it made NO sense to go with the Nikon in this case. I've had pretty good luck with several select Tamron's in the past. This was has NOT disappointed.......I got mine from Canoga Camera and they are great. NO opened box like some vendors in New York that are respected but shall remain nameless..........
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2007
|
|
donutley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 484
|
|
Review Date: Mar 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, smooth zoom ring, well-balanced. A very competent lens for the money.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
I thought Tamron would be hard-pressed to ever beat the bang-for-the-buck of the 28-75/2.8, but they did with this great lens! It feels better, is built a bit better, and is actually sharper. Even the whining focus motor adds a little fun. Recommended with no reservations.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2007
|
|
Dede Multazam
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 19, 2007
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice Lens for Canon EF Mount, Very Sharp, Hood Included.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
No Comment
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2007
|
|
Austin Fern
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 3, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Mar 16, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $429.99
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, inexpensive, sharp, fast, sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus sound can be disconcerting in a quiet venue...but so can teh shutter on my 20D, build is so-so.
|
|
|
I had originally bought the EF 28-135 IS. I managed to get some pretty nice pictures with that lens. Circumstance allowed me to trade in the 28-135 for something else. Since I had just bought the 70-200 f/2.8 I was looking for something with a little more on the wide end.
The Tamron has been the only lens on my camera for the last week since I bought it. Very nice color and amazingly sharp. When compared to the prices of the other options in this range, this is a hands down winner of a lens.
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2007
|
|
nikt
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 20, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 6310
|
|
Review Date: Mar 15, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, sharpness, edge to edge performance at any aperture.
|
|
Cons:
|
faster and quieter would be nice, but then it probably wouldn't cost as little as it does
|
|
|
Should be included as the standard lens in almost every case. Some reports of it not being good enough, so make sure you buy from a reputable dealer. In my opinion, this lens has set a new standard for price / performance.
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2007
|
|
maxim_me
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 22, 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 304
|
|
Review Date: Mar 15, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp out of camera, great value for f2.8, sturdy built, none of the sigma coating, free lens hood, Great rubber grip,
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom ring gearing is long, takes many turns from 17 to 50, miss balanced inner elements, left-right sharpness not equal, horrid technical support,
|
|
Had 2 copies of this lens, both had the misaligned inner lens.
The left-right sharpness of image is not the same.
If the left is sharp , the right would be blurry etc.
Mine was "assembled in China" not made in China
misalignment is very obvious at f2.8, somewhat acceptable at
f5.6. This shows it self more for group shots or people who like to take pics of wall etc.
Still useable.
Image is sharp and contrasty, focus very close around till 4 in away. Good zoom grip and good AF switch over. NOne of the sigma double action thing.
Sturdy build ( ABS engineering plastic ), no Sigma's peel-off-coating, pretty light.
AF is fast enough but slightly slower than Sigma 18-50. Although it's louder but AF accuracy is better in the Tamron.
Yes, AF makes some sound but I never bothered with the sound, dont know why its some people's major concern.
Anycase, if you intend to get one, test it properly at the shop.
Technical support is nonexistence.....
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2007
|
|
susi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2622
|
|
Review Date: Mar 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $379.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, light, fast
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I read a lot of reviews before I purchased and have found that all the praise is deserved! Very sharp and fast in low light where I was hoping it would be. I bought this for portrait /wedding photography and it is perfect for taking in the whole room/church etc and doing it all with natural light.
Excellent price for this little shiner! Highly recommended!
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2007
|
|
incdigital
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 226
|
|
Review Date: Mar 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $340.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp, Lightweight, Compact, Perfect range for DX sensor
|
|
Cons:
|
CA in high contrast areas, Build is plastic and feels plastic, AF is only "ok"...improves if used on D200 or D2X
|
|
|
For my needs(light compact lens that performs well) I can really look over the negative aspects of the lens. I have never bought a Tamron lens before this and after I evaluated the 17-50 I can say I would certainly buy other products from them in the future. Overall a bargain buy IMO.
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2007
|
|
Ultima2003
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 47
|
|
Review Date: Mar 14, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, zoom range, and f/2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
soft focus. loud mechanism
|
|
|
While I love my Tammy 28-75, my hopes fell short on the 17-50. I took the 17-50 on vacation leaving other lenses at home for a lighter bag. I was disappointed in most all pictures at any length and aperature. Most shots were outdoors in bright Arizona sunlight at f/7-11. Shutter speeds in the 1/1000's or higher. Even with heavy sharpening they looked soft and out of focus.
With saddness I returned the lense. I was hoping for better performance and I am not highly critical.
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2007
|
|
johansec
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 36
|
|
Review Date: Mar 12, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $389.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, good colors, fast focus, light, affordable
|
|
Cons:
|
Not happy with excessive CA.
|
|
|
I bought this lens because the 17-55 kit lens that came with my Canon 20D had very poor sharpness.
I have used this lens for about a month now. I have been happy with the auto focus and handling. The sharpness is a great improvement over the kit lens and the colors are good.
My one big disappointment is with the amount of CA. I recently went on a camping trip and a lot of the pictures I took included trees with sky behind them. I was excited about some of the pictures when I took them, but was disappointed to find that the CA was excessive enough that I couldn't correct it in Photoshop and was not able to include the photos in my portfolio.
I might try renting the comparable Canon L lens and test shoot both of them side by side and see if I am being unfair to the Tamron.
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
192
|
450119
|
Jun 14, 2016
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
88% of reviewers
|
$406.59
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.08
|
9.33
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
