 |
|
|
Luke Ty
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp, high IQ, close focusing, fixed f/2.8 aperture, compact and light weight, build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
No full time manual focus, focus hunts a bit in lower light, zoom ring is clunky at both ends. I wish this lens was just a tad wider and longer. It's not a Canon. ;)
|
|
|
I've got an early copy of this lens, made in Japan. I've had this lens for the better part of a year now. I just picked up my first Canon L lens (70-200mm f/4 IS) and it makes me appreciate the Tamron even more! Why? Because I consistently get beautiful SHARP images from the Tamron, easily on par with the Canon L glass. The Canon 70-200mm does have some pretty amazing buttery bokeah due to it's shallow DOF. Back to the Tamron, a fixed aperture of f/2.8, makes it a great all around zoom lens. This lens pretty much lives on my Canon 30D. I've also got an EF 50 1.4 USM, but the Tamron is SO good that I hardly mount the Canon 50mm 1.4 unless I know I'm going to be shooting in really low light or want to force myself to work without a zoom.
The close focusing distance of the Tamron allow for fantastic close up photography. This is not a macro lens, but it's pretty darn good. This is my second Tamron SP lens, the first being the excellent Tamron 24-135mm SP. My previous lens was both wider and longer when used on a 35mm body (Elan 7e). I do miss the range of my previous Tamron lens, but it was simply not wide enough on my newer 30D. I sold the 24-135mm and picked up the 17-50mm f/2.8. I have no regrets. The 17-50mm focuses much faster due to it's fixed f/2.8 aperture. The new lens is lighter and more compact and much better for indoor and low light use. The zoom ring has nice damping, but is still a bit clunky at both ends. The fixed aperture really makes the Tamron a nice zoom lens to work with.
Around f/4 on up this lens is just fantastic and SHARP. I love it. The lens is plenty usable at f/2.8 but the DOF is very shallow and some CA is noticeable. Sometimes I desire the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, until I remember how much it costs! The IQ, price and convenience of the smaller and lighter Tamron lens make it an excellent choice. I haven't found myself wanting IS very often at this focal length anyway.
There is some CA visible when shooting certain conditions wide open. The manual focus ring is not that great either. Auto focus works very well most of the time, but does make a little bit of noise. The lens does hunt more than decent Canon USM lenses, but with enough light this usually isn't a problem. I often find myself trying to twist the zoom ring wider. When I need more reach I can move closer to the subject or switch to a longer lens. Sometimes this is not possible when trying to include more of the subject in the frame. Due to this the Canon 10-22mm USM is on my short list of things I'd like to acquire in the near future.
The Tamron has got to be one of the nicest all around lenses at this price and focal length for a cropped sensor DSLR. I realize there are many out there who would prefer a 17-300mm, but at what cost? The Tamron 17-50 covers the most used focal lengths and does it at a fixed with fixed f/2.8 aperture and great IQ. I've tried and owned more than a few great EOS lenses, most of them made by Canon. I've consolidated, swapped and sold off most of my lenses leaving me with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, Canon 50mm 1.4mm USM and the Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS. I'm very happy with this light weight high quality combination of lenses. The Tamron IQ holds it's own when compared to my other Canon lenses, including the 100mm f.2.8 USM macro that I just sold.
This lens would be perfect if it was equipped with a USM type focus system and was a few mm wider. If you're looking for a sweet all around lens for your cropped sensor DSLR, check out the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.
|
|
 Oct 14, 2007
|
|
DavidWEGS
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 13, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast to focus an acquire its subject. Sharp at both ends and very light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not so good in very low light, but that is compared to the likes of the 35L, so no surprise there.
|
|
|
I have had this lens for a while as a backup to the 17-55 Canon. I used it once for a whole day and found it to be quite surprisingly good. Better than I had expected or hoped for in a cheap 2.8 Zoom. Kudos to Tamron for their product and their Warranty.
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2007
|
|
Dawei Ye
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 14, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 3763
|
|
Review Date: Oct 12, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Edge Sharpness better than many more expensive zooms, Wide even on 1.6X Sensor, Includes Lens Hood
|
|
Cons:
|
Overrated Image Quality, Low light focusing, tends to underexpose but not sure if it is Lens fault
|
|
In interests of disclosure I am a newbie with a Canon 400D (Rebel XTi) and I own this and a 50mm f/1.8
Paid AUD $560 (approx $500 USD) compared to AUD $125 for the 50mm Prime
Build Quality feels incredible relative to my 50mm f/1.8 which is a farce.
This is a capable lens but I feel it is a bit overhyped from the reviews. However, it is starting to grow on me though as my skill levels increase, and I feel it's performance is improving every day as my skills improve (unlike the Prime which was easy to use and obtain good images straight out of the box)
I was initially very disappointed by the lens and thought I got a dud even though I got a Made in Japan one, but after going back to the shop another sample was only very slightly sharper, and comparing to my friend's L Lens (which resolves better resolution but has softer images, especially at the edges), I know that it was more my unrealistic expectations after seeing too many 1Ds Mark II sample images.
But on my copy I still can't help but feel sharpness seems overrated, it is comparable to my 50mm f/1.8 at 5.6, but is much worse at 2.8 (which would be expected). True it is a zoom and you can't expect prime like results for its price, but it does cost more than 4X more than the 50mm f/1.8 prime.
Colours seem a bit subdued and dull, I don't know if this is because of constant underexposure due to user error, the camera (400D/Rebel XTi) or what...but images are often dark and smudgy. I bought a Speedlite 430EX though and this has helped significantly giving slightly sharper, and much better colour when I use Bounce Flash.
You do get a lot for your money though: Constant f/2.8 (though a bit soft was you would expect), useful zoom range on a APS-C sensor, though a bit more on the telephoto end would be useful!!!, Lens Hood is included, negligible if any zoom creep, almost as good sharpness as the 50mm f/1.8 prime.
Some annoyances are no FTM, focus ring turns, and needs more on the tele end  (I don't care about Autofocus noise)
All in all an ok lens, I gave it a 8, but if I did this review a week ago it would have been a 7 (and a 6 a week before that), so it is growing on me!
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2007
|
|
nw85887
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 29, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $389.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
great IQ, tack sharp, constant 2.8, very usable range, comes with lenshood
|
|
Cons:
|
noisy zoom, sometimes hunts in very low light, no IS/OS/VR
|
|
|
Very hard to beat for the price.
I bought this lens to hold me over until the new Canon L's are announced (come on 24-105L f2.8 IS or 24-70L f2.8 IS).
|
|
|
Oct 9, 2007
|
|
Jeremy Brown
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 3, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
F2.8, included lens hood, light and compact, very clear, sharp images, not overly contrasty, very reasonable price, included center pinch lens cap, good build for a AF lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
rather loud AF, AF hunts in low light (30D may contribute to this as well), gritty focus ring.
|
|
|
Overall I would highly recommend this lens. Considering the Canon alternative is over twice the price, I think this lens is a great bargain. My test shots are all clear and crisp even at f2.8! Early on F5.6 seams to be the sweet spot. All apertures all have a smooth contrast. The corner sharpness appears to be a highlight, with close to prime lens performance. With my old Canon 17-35 the corners had that unattractive smeared pastel look all the way up to f5.6, what is the point of paying for and carrying around a heavy f2.8 lens if you can't use the f2.8 images?
The focus and build quality are maybe just OK. I don't understand why no one can build a smooth turning, well packaged lens anymore. The focus ring is gritty, the AF is noisy and the case has a plastic look. But, I am not going to pay 600 dollars more for the Canon that is just a little better. Every once and a while I'll pull out my old Zeiss 50 just to hold a well made lens again.
|
|
|
Oct 3, 2007
|
|
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: 181
|
|
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: 870
|
|
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 27, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 27, 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 27, 2007
|
|
ssnap
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 459
|
|
Review Date: Jul 23, 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 23, 2007
|
|
Wing Choo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 7, 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/[email protected]/
can anyone take a look and tell me?
|
|
|
Jul 8, 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
