 |
|
|
sevan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 118
|
|
Review Date: Sep 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight....f/2.8...sharpness....price
|
|
Cons:
|
Kind of plasticky...focus ring spins when auto-focusing...slow AF
|
|
|
Needed a wider-angle lens for a wedding...went to local shop to see this lens and liked it immediately. Not at all comparable build-wise to a Canon "L", for example, but okay. For me, the real thing I like about the lens is the sharpness of images...on a par with many other lenses 3 times the price. Yes, there is vignetting at edes wide open and some softness wide open...but by the time you get to f/5.6 on it is really a great lens given the online price at many places. I have since gotten a Canon 17-40 but I cannot convince myself to part with this lens...besides, it has that bulbous, protruding, yellow-reddish front element that is pretty cool!
|
|
 Sep 8, 2006
|
|
kluken
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 26, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 32
|
|
Review Date: Aug 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $499.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good images, excellent IQ especially stopped down a bit. Great wide lens ona crop camera.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow focus. On a FF 5D the vignetting is horrible all through the ranges, even stopped down.
|
|
|
I got this lens for my 20D a while back becasue the reviews had it on par with a Canon 17-40L for $200 less. I was very happy with my purchase. I don;t shoot much wide so spending more for the Canon glass was not worth it. The lens performed great for me in its limited use. I recently got a 5D and decided to give it a try and wow, the tables have turned. The Vignetting is really bad on a FF camera at most apertures and morst focal lengths. I have essentially given the lense to the GF since she now has my 20D. I do use it occasionally on my backup body (30D). It does tend to be a tad soft wide open at the edges even on the crop camera, but not real noticable and stopped down it is fine. For a crop camera this is a fine lens, but I would pass on it for a FF.
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2006
|
|
coolbobo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 5, 2005
Location: China
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Aug 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, huge price advantage being ~25% of EF16-35 f/2.8L, 50% of EF 17-40 f/4.0, less than 1 lb
|
|
Cons:
|
no full time manual focus, slower than USM focus speed, lack of weather sealing, zoom ring reversed from Canon, build not as solid as Canon lens
|
|
|
Simply an outstanding lens. Exceptional value. Very sharp, colours a bit cool but close to Canon.
|
|
|
Aug 3, 2006
|
|
racoll
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Dec 1, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3286
|
|
Review Date: Aug 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Quite sharp, nice color, great image quality, nice feel in spite of being all plastic, 2.8 at the wide end, seems worth much more than what it costs.
|
|
Cons:
|
More flare than what I'd like, AF slower than USM and noisier.
|
|
|
I bought this lens as a back-up to our 17-40L for the times my significant other and I both need a wide-angle (which isn't all that often), and because it's an inexpensive way to get 17mm at f/2.8 (the main reason) to use on low-light sky and landscape shots. I have been very pleasantly surprised to find that this particular copy doesn't give anything away in sharpness compared to the Canon, nor in color. It feels very solid and is smooth in operation thanks to the nice grip on the zoom ring. I do feel that the AF is noticeably slower than the 17-40 and quite a bit louder, but no more so than most AF lenses other than Canon. It also demonstrates more flare than the Canon when shooting with the sun in the frame, but not as much as you'd see with lesser quality lenses. I enjoy being able to shoot at lower ISOs in very low light or at night with the wide aperture. All in all, I'm quite impressed with this lens and find myself using it more than the others in my bag at the present. If you can get a good copy of this lens, it's a very nice one to have, especially at the prices its being sold for.
|
|
|
Aug 2, 2006
|
|
daliangr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 16, 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $370.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp,great color,fast focusing,good built,lightweight,price.
|
|
Cons:
|
some distortion 17-22mm
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 23, 2006
|
|
dersimon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 17, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 17, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
good built quality, nice weight and size
|
|
Cons:
|
not sharp as it used to be
|
|
|
hey!
First of all I'm sorry for my english. Please ignore my mistakes.
So, I'm new in the DSLR sector and I took a lot of time to think about wich lenses I should use. I didn't want the kit lens, because I already knew that it would not satisfy me. I first wanted to buy the EF 24mm but after reading plenty of reviews especially on this page I changed my decision. I decided to buy the Tamron 17-35mm.
I liked the lens as soon as I opened the box, then I took some pictures and my satisfaction was gone immediately...
.."maybe" I first thought "I expected too much", but today I compared it to my cousins 18-55mm EF-S kit and I realised that even his lens was sharper at all apertures and all equal focal length.
I was aware of the fact that there could be quality control problems, but never took this seriously... I send this lens back within my 14day warranty to get my money back. Now I have to decide wether I try another tamron 17-35mm or I spend my money on something different...damn I'm so upset about it
I will update my review if I get a new and hopefuly better one
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2006
|
|
cogitech
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 11429
|
|
Review Date: Apr 12, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $320.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, excellent colour & contrast, VERY wide on 1.3x crop. Relatively lightweight. Nicely damped focus ring and zoom ring.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hunts a bit in odd situations. Medium AF speed. Significant flare when the sun is in the frame, but I guess that is to be expected.
|
|
|
I've had this for a little over a week now and it has certainly lived up to all these great reviews. My copy is respectibly sharp even wide open and just gets better as I stop down a bit.
Not as spectacular as my Magic Drainpipe or some of my primes, but it is easily as sharp as the EF 20mm f2.8 that I rented a few weeks ago.
AF speed could be snappier, but I don't consider this to be a major issue on somehting this wide.
Flare is certainly there. The hood helps a lot, but I had to use my hand as an extra shade a few times. No big deal.
I am pleasantly surprised at how wide it is on my 1.3x crop 1D. No real need for anything wider than this. Another pleasant surprise is that I have noticed very little softness and/or light fall-off out at the edges, even on the 1.3x crop.
The combination of speed, image quality, and width of this lens simply cannot beat by anything in this price range.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2006
|
|
jadefox
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp end to end, good build, hood. nice bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
autofocus slightly noisy, some purple fringing. Focus ring moves on autofocus.
|
|
|
I must have gotten lucky because my lens was sharp with no problems the first time. This lens turned out a nice bokeh at 35mm IMO. The autofocus is a little noise but not as bad as some. The focus ring also rotates on AF. I like the lens cap design which allows you put take it on or off easily with the hood attached.
This lens is a keeper.
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2006
|
|
seanmclennan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 16, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good wide open. Fast wide open. Sharp. Good lens hood. Great color reproduction. Can't beat the price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic body. No dust sealing. Noisy AF compared to USM lenses. No zoom lock...so hold camera on it's side and zoom creeps. If you shoot completely vertical...you might need to hold the zoom ring to keep it from creeping.
|
|
|
I tried 5 Canon 17-40Ls...and I could not get one that didn't have focus issues on my 20D. Might be my camera...but it works fine with my other lenses. (Canon 70-200 2.8L, 50 1.8, Tamron 28-75 2.8)...so in the end, I bought the one that works.
I really wish that Tamron would make more robust lenses for their professional SP line. Sigma has this right. Make stronger lens bodies and maybe even some dust sealing...I would be more than happy to pay an extra 15-20% for this...and it would still be at least 30% cheaper than any comparable Canon lens!
The lens impressed me the most by doing nothing unexpected. I put it on and shoot. It does what it is supposed to do...and does it every time. Sharp, neutral color reproduction, no AF hunting, no bad AF locks. It does it's job without any headaches or issues. You can depend on it. Isn't THAT is what we really care about in the end?
I would recommend it to anyone.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2006
|
|
isogood
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 19, 2005
Location: France
Posts: 405
|
|
Review Date: Jan 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp, nice colors and contrast, good focusing, hood,
|
|
Cons:
|
little flare, beware...
|
|
using it with the 20D, very happy, meets my requirements.
Very good colors and contrast, seems a little (different than canon colors, but very little...
great difference with the warm Sigma
it is sharp on my copy at all focal lengths and apertures in the center, and good at the edges
edges show little softness and chromatic aberration in some conditions, but no more than others at same range.
It is very easy to correct in post-processing.
I appreciate the ligthweight and the smooth focusing.
You may see some of my tests shots on Pbase, side to side with my (very good) canon 10-22
some golf shots I like also with it on my Pbase golf galleries
http://www.pbase.com/isogood/lens_tests_and_reviews
|
|
|
Jan 3, 2006
|
|
tom in mpls
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2291
|
|
Review Date: Dec 26, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, size, fast focus, accurate focus, sharp, good color and contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
None, really.
|
|
|
I've had the Canon 17-40 and 16-35. I guess the 16-35 can be great if you get a good copy, and the 17-40 is always nice. However, here is a lens available for $350 used that's fast, accurate, and sharp. What's not to like? Why pay $200 to $300 more for a slower lens, or $900 more for the Canon 2.8 when this lens is so nice?
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2005
|
|
sivrajbm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3430
|
|
Review Date: Nov 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $469.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
f2.8, speed, sharpness, color, contrast, accurate focus did I mention SHARP.
|
|
Cons:
|
focus ring rotates
|
|
|
The best that under 5 bills can buy.
I recently had an opportunity to buy a 16-35L.
I took it back, this little Tamron more than held it's own against the "L". I just can't see enough of a difference to justify paying another 12 bills for such a marginal improvement. The "L" was slighty faster, but not sharper @2.8 so what's the use.
This lens is still the bomb in my book. I couldn't replace it and I tried.
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2005
|
|
Sulaco
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 132
|
|
Review Date: Nov 17, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $459.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, colors are perfect, focuses like a champ, light, built well. I could go on.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow autofocus, external focusing, flare.
|
|
|
This is a followup to my original review. Now that I have had the lens for a little longer, I have some more input.
I have determined this to be the sharpest lens I have owned up to this point. It even surpasses my Canon 70-200 f/4L which was (I thought) as sharp as it gets. I just can't say enought about how sharp this lens is. It also focuses dead-on. I think accurate auto-focus and sharpness are directly related for the most part and it really shows in this lens. Tamron put this one together right!
It is also lightweight which is nice if you pack it into the backcountry attached to a camera with a tripod and other kit.
I have taken hundreds of exposures at various focal lengths and apertures and this lens is as sharp at 17mm, f/2.8 as it is at 28mm f/8 or 35mm f/22!
I seriously considered getting the Tokina 12-24 or the Sigma 12-24 because shooting on a 1.6x crop, this lens isn't very wide for landscapes, but now that I have it, I will NEVER sell it. I would rather backup.
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2005
|
|
jason62
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 14, 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, I mean VERY SHARP
|
|
Cons:
|
Absolutely nothing
|
|
|
I have been using this lens for a couple of months, and it has not ceased to amaze me with the sharpness and color rendition.
It is sharper than my Nikon 50mm F1.8 by a significant margin.
I used to own a Tamron SP AF28-75MM F/2.8 but was disappointed with the image quality, and managed to sell it off.
But this SP AF17-35MM F/2.8-4 is different, it is a GEM to be kept!
|
|
|
Nov 6, 2005
|
|
Sulaco
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 132
|
|
Review Date: Oct 12, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $459.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp, fast and lightweight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Plasticy feel, slow focus.
|
|
|
I just got this lens this week. I did a focus test and found it to be dead-on with my 300D (phew!). This lens is tack sharp wide open at 17mm. That's all I really know so far. I will update when I have more time behind it.
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2005
|
|
Rhys
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: May 5, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3578
|
|
Review Date: Sep 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $349.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp at all focal lengths and apertures. No noticable spherical or chromatic aberations. Comes with a lens hood.
|
|
Cons:
|
Bulbous front element and filter size
|
|
|
I bought this secondhand and it passed all of my tests with flying colours. I would have liked to have seen f2.8 at all focal lengths but it's not bad even though it does drop a stop over the whole zoom range.
It's definitely better than anything comparible.
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
34
|
154498
|
Sep 30, 2014
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
91% of reviewers
|
$336.76
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.18
|
9.18
|
8.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
