 |
|
|
B Stevens
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 13, 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jun 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp wide open, very sharp from corner to corner @f/5.6, very little distrotions, f/2.8 throughout the whole zoomrange, cheap, fast enough AF and a pretty solid feel.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very noisy AF, colours look a bit flat, no constant MF, nothing to bad for a serious beginner though.
|
|
|
This product is indeed recommended by me because of the following reasons:
This lens is very sharp zoomed out and zoomed in, sharp wide open in the center, and is very sharp from edge to edge when stopped down around f5.6.
There are very little distortions, nothing no one wouldn't expect from such a lens and nothing photoshop can't fix either.
The lens feels well build and the plastic hood clicks on more easily than two canon lenses i own, (100mm 2.8 usm macro and the 200mm 2.8L II USM)
Overal you get some very nice features for only 350 euro's!
But when trying to be and look more professioinal and for instance take a look at some pictures made with the Canon EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, i feel the colours could be more rich, more contrasty and life-like.
Maybe i am wrong, i did not have the chance to test them side by side and of course with photoshop this also can be pretty much corrected.
The price difference between the two makes it somewhat unfair to campare them with each other, i know.
Another downside MIGHT be that the AF (altough being fast) is also very noisy, when shooting an quiet performance or show of some sort the focus sound is deffinatly be heard by everyone around you.
No constant manual focus is a llittle downside too. Conclusion:
For serious beginners or not to high demanding folks this lens is Highly recommended!
Conclusion:
For serious beginners or not to high demanding folks this lens is Highly recommended!
But for semi-pro's or people who just want to go a step further, i gues the Canon EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is the only real alternative.
The 17-40 4L is very nice of course but not f/2.8 and the Canon EF 17-55mm IS USM is not build well enough, way to much of a dust sucker to cost that much.
And his cheaper brother 17-85mm has the same problem + more blur and colour distortions @17mm than the cheap 18-55mm kitlens!
happy buying!
|
|
 Jun 23, 2008
|
|
TriDak Foto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 10, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 10, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. light, durable, fast and cheaper then it's well known competition!
|
|
Cons:
|
My only negative is it has no IS but I can live without it at this range.
|
|
|
When I first bought my Canon 40D last year the first lens I ordered was the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8IS. While it was a great lens and the image stabilization worked very well I was not thoroughly impressed with it and did not believe it was worth the $1000 I had paid.
After a couple of months of use I decided to sell my Canon and then made the switch completely to the Canon 10-22mm and bought the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 to compliment this lens figuring it was a better deal for my shooting needs.
It worked for quite a few months but I found I did not use the UWA as often as I had thought I would. BUT after using my first third party lens (Tamron) I was extremely impressed by it and I thought I would go back to my original focal length of the 17-50(5)mm range and get rid of the Tamron 28-75mm lens this time.
So I FINALLY bought this 17-50mm by Tamron! I knew it had rave reviews and expected it to be as nice as the 28-75mm but MAN WAS I IMPRESSED!
My copy is extremely sharp wide open and at all apertures! I don't hesitate to use it at f/2.8 in any situation! I never expected the IQ to be as good as it is with my copy and I now highly recommend this lens to anyone looking to get this focal length for their cropped cameras but wish to save the cash over the Nikkor and Canon.
It is fast as it is 2.8, well built but not to the degree of a Canon lens or Pro Nikon but believe me it is very durable and has some weight to it but not as much as that Canon! It is very sharp too! Maybe some copies have issues but if you can get a good copy of the lens, be glad you did!
It also comes with the hood unlike come models ... a longer warranty and I love Tamron's front caps.
Anyhow I highly recommend this lens if you need the focal length and can live without IS. I wish I had just bought this before messing around with the previous lenses.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2008
|
|
myam203
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Feb 10, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2346
|
|
Review Date: Jun 4, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $425.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, nice build, constant f/2.8, cheap, sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
My copy is a bit soft at 2.8, but still acceptable (especially at the wide end of the focal range).
|
|
|
This is a great lens, and I think an incredibly decent alternative to the Nikon 17-55. Not to take anything away from the Nikon, because it's definitely a pro lens with a pro build delivering pro results, but you really can't take it anywhere without worrying like you can with this (price and weight).
The price is right, and I like being able to go to 17mm as opposed to 18mm in the cheaper lenses (I don't feel like I need anything wider for now). I wish it went to 70mm, but it is what it is, so I can't call that a negative. It focuses quickly, but probably not as fast as an AF-S lens, though I don't think focus speed is critical in this range anyway. Some might say it's a little noisy when focusing, but I barely notice it even in the most quiet of settings. It's also a little soft wide open, but pretty darn good by f/4, and excellent by f/5.6.
The build quality is good and sturdy, and the rubberized grip on the zoom ring is very comfortable (though I do have small hands). Basically, the quality is well matched to the cost of this lens.
In a practical sense, this is a go-everywhere lens that just barely fits in my little Lowepro shoulder bag when mounted on my D300 (I think it's a Lowepro Rezo 120). I couldn't say the same about the larger Nikon.
|
|
|
Jun 4, 2008
|
|
okaaycom
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 28, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $430.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price!, Lightweight, large aperture, great minimum focusing distance, no zoom creep
|
|
Cons:
|
Loud AF, no SWM/AF-S, lots of vignetting when wide open
|
|
|
Purchased this because I couldn't justify spending $1400 on the Nikon equivalent. I also read the reviews on here and they were for the most part great. It's so small, I couldn't believe how much bigger then Nikon 17-55 is compared to this. I'm very happy with this lens.
Wide aperture. Lightweight, small. Great for travelling. The image quality, from what I can tell is pretty good. There is quite a bit of vignetting when you take pictures at f/2.8, but some people like it. There's some distortion at 17mm, but can be expected.
The AF is loud.
The MFD is really good, I think. It can focus at about 10" from the sensor to the object. 4" from the tip of the lens at 50mm, and 6" from the tip of the lens at 17mm.
|
|
|
May 28, 2008
|
|
toguko
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 24, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 24, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
f/2.8, fast AF, starts from 17mm
|
|
Cons:
|
not sharp at f/2.8 in low light, 50mm not enough (70mm would be nice), not for full frame, IQ not perfect
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2008
|
|
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 8, 2008
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: May 8, 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 8, 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
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 23, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 2783
|
|
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: United States
Posts: 67
|
|
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 25, 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
