 |
|
|
ruicarv79
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 8, 2014
Location: Portugal
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 30, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $225.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, lightweight, sharp enough (center), f/2.8.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft corners and vignetting wide open, some CA.
|
|
This lens was a nice surprise.
I bought mine used like new (it is not produced anymore). I wanted a cheap option for UWA and I found this bargain. I was unsure about it because of some reports of its under performance in FF (I use a Canon 6D) but I cannot complain (too much) about it. The image quality is very good in the center of the frame (really a good surprise) although a little poor in the corners.
But overall, I'm truly satisfied with this lens.
Yeah it has some CAs, yeah it has some corner softness, yeah you get noticeable vignetting wide open but, hey, that happens also with Canon 17-40 L! And you have a bonus of having f/2.8 in the wide end with this lens. 
Couldn't ask for more for the price.
|
|
 Sep 30, 2014
|
|
jcsculpture
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 13, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp! Price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Distortion at wide end.
|
|
I have put together a lens comparison test of the Canon 16 – 35 L II and the Tamron 17 – 35 2.8 – 4.0.
I was in the market for quite a while looking for a lens which would satisfy this zoom range. I initially bought the Canon 16-35 2.8 L II, but was disappointed with the results. Not that it was bad, just for the price, it was just that it wasn't great. I was expecting more. So on a whim (had 30 days to return) I decided to try out the Tamron.
Summary;
The Tamron is very close and may even surpass the Canon in terms of sharpness when shot wide open – especially at 35mm in which case, the Tamron definitely surpasses the Canon. Canon beats the Tamron in regards to distortion, but ever so slightly. AF is better with the Canon - slightly faster, not significantly. Vignetting about the same. Canon has better saturation and contrast.
I had a hard time actually accepting my own test. I really wanted to love the Canon. This was one of the first times I had done a lens comparison with a Canon L lens and a third party lens. The price difference between the two was so dramatic, that I assumed the image quality would be as well. To be honest, I was shocked. Since the test revealed how close they performed, I returned the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 L II and kept the Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4.0. IMO, the Canon is not worth spending and extra $1,000.
For full review and sample pictures showing sharpness, distortion, vignetting, etc.. click on following link;
http://johncarnessali.com/lens-tests/2995
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2011
|
|
romanko
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 5, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 125
|
|
Review Date: Sep 14, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $240.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
light, fast, and quite sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
nothing really
|
|
|
Decided to give a try to this lens instead of Canon 17-40 or 16-35 as I am not that much into wide angle photography, and did not want to commit too much money for a lens I would not use often. Also, did not feel like lugging another solid and heavy L lens that may or may not get used on a particular occasion. Had this lens for a few month, used it a few times, and have been very satisfied so far.
It is light and compact, but of pretty substantial built, so I just keep it in my bag just in case. Sharpness is quite good, so that I have not had any shots ruined on that account - never tried to use it for very detailed landscape images, but for taking pictures of people and building in close quarters it has worked very very well. Color is very nice, vignetting is not bad at all, have not had any major problems with glare, softness in the corners is not bad, and it is fast at 2.8 between 17 and 20 mm!
Very usefully, Lightroom 3 has a profile for this lens for RAW image processing (not for JPG), which makes it most useful for correcting the distortion present in all wide angle lenses! I never use the hood with this lens as it just takes valuable space in my bag. Quite glad got this one instead of Canon 17-40, as it is faster, lighter, far cheaper, and provides pretty good image quality.
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2011
|
|
dpcassil
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 18, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 727
|
|
Review Date: Apr 15, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp enough, Cheap, f/2.8 at 17mm (the only FL i bought it for), light, pleasing bokeh when you have a situation that allows for it. pleasing colors and contrast. very manageable distortion
|
|
Cons:
|
Retardedly slow focus. (not the end of the world for a ultra wide) serious vingetting on a FF.
|
|
If you own a crop camera.... just go get a crop lens like tamrons crop version of the 28-75 f/2.8. think its a 17-55 or something. If you have a full frame and need wide and cheap.... I cant imagine it gets better than this for the price. check out the resolution chart on http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Tamron-17-35mm-f-2.8-4-Di-Lens-Review.aspx compare it vs the canon L lenses. at 17mm f/2.8 the center is as good.
focusing is slow... like.... ya know the sound an automatic garage door makes. thats about the speed of sound it makes (if that makes sense) slow.
Like the tamron 28-75 lens i own both have build quality much better than canon's low end stuff. I would say somehere between the 50 f/1.8 and the 85 f/1.8 closer to the 85 though.
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011
|
|
asamimasa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 28, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 207
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $260.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very good center sharpness, lightweight, can be had for pretty cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
flare, soft corners, not the fastest AF, not constant aperture, distortion on wide end
|
|
|
One of the best wide zoom options available on FF, especially if on a budget.
Until you have enough money to afford a 16-35 or 14-24, this will get you by very well.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2011
|
|
dealaddict
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 11, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 36
|
|
Review Date: Jun 22, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $225.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap, sharp through-out
|
|
Cons:
|
so-so build quality, so-so focus speed
|
|
|
I had a Sigma 15-30, but sold it due to lack of use. Then I am planning on a vacation and looking for a wide angle lens for my 5D again. There are no too many choices out there for a FF compatible wide angle lens. Did some research on this one, and thanks to the FM rating, this seems to be a reasonable good lens, so, decided to try it out. I find this refurbish copy on eBay with a price of $225. I used it for my trip, and the result far exceed my expectation. The focus is spot on, and it is sharp throughout the 17-35 range. It is light and small as well. I don't take landscape very often, so, I don't want to invest too much on a WA lens, but this lens really surprise me. It is better than the Sigma 15-30 I used to have. I think you can't find FF compatible WA lens cheaper and better than this.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2010
|
|
phatbaby
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 5, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 20
|
|
Review Date: May 23, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $299.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
value, weight, lens cap, fast aperture
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow AF
|
|
|
For $299 I thought I'd risk it since it we far cheaper than either of Canon's wide angle zooms. This lens excels at the wide angle and pretty much wide open which is where I like to use it. There are complaints of softness at the edges and CA, but for portrait work I could care less for the former and if there's that much contrast in my image to bring out CA, I'm probably doing something wrong with respect to lighting. Anyway, I've been pleasantly surprised and have no plans on getting the L-lens equivalent any time soon (I have the 50mm, 24-105 and 70-200 L-lens for comparison). It's definitely not built as rugged, but I actually prefer the lighter weight and the fact that I could replace it twice for the same cost of comparable Canon glass. The build is at least as nice as Canon's non L prime lenses.
I have seen molasses move faster than the focus on this so I wouldn't use this frequently for toddler photography but otherwise it's great.
...one other thing I love - the front lens cap can be easily removed even with the hood on.
|
|
|
May 23, 2009
|
|
Gaspar Avila
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 6, 2006
Location: Portugal
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 17, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Not good enough for a full-frame camera.
|
|
|
I bought this lens for my 5D (MkI), but only kept it for a month.
The center of this lens is sharp and I liked the 2.8 aperture, but the corners were awful: very very soft and lots of vignetting. This lens is really not good enough for a full-frame camera. I have some friends who use it on APS-C cameras with satisfactory results.
I sold mine and bought the Canon 17-40L, which I still keep today.
|
|
|
May 17, 2009
|
|
hfasninvsn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 18, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $289.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Affordable, decently wide, color and sharpness.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow AF, loud AF. At 35mm, widest aperture is f/4.
|
|
|
This was the second lens I bought for my 300D, following a 50mm f/1.8 II. Comparatively, this lens is very slow to autofocus, and it can be very noisy when doing so as well. I notice that it hunts more in low-light than the 50mm as well. However, the wider, 17mm focal length is great. It's not as wide as a 10mm, obviously, but for the price, I'm happy with it. If you're looking for an affordable semi-Wide angle lens (on a crop body) then I'd recommend this.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009
|
|
metalstorm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 10, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 513
|
|
Review Date: Dec 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $299.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Really wife on my 5D, light, sharp, f2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
focus motor, not built as nice as my Canon 24-105L
|
|
|
This is one of my favorite lens and I use it a lot. It's wide enough to be a fun lens. I bought it new a couple of years ago for $299 and I've never had any issues of sharpness. I was very impressed with it early on. The edges aren't as sharp as the middle but I count it against it. I use it more at the 17mm range. Definitely a keeper. I didn't realize there were QC issues so I am lucky I guess that mine is very sharp.
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2008
|
|
Cliffee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp if you can get a good one.
|
|
Cons:
|
Bad Q/A. Slow noisy motor.
|
|
I can see I'm not the only one who suffered with Tamron's crappy Q/A. My first copy was terrible. After sending it back to Tamron twice they hand picked me another. This one is very nice. When I first saw the pics I couldn't believe the difference! Sharp and contrasty from wide open and on. I can't say how it will perform on a full frame but it works great on my 20/40D's.
If I had to due it all again I would go for the Canon 17-40L. It is built much better and the USM motor is much faster/quieter/ and more accurate. From what I read it will be a much better choice on a full frame which I will eventually have. (5DII  )Heck, I still might go that route!
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2008
|
|
ghamden
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 181
|
|
Review Date: Jun 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $185.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great Lens excellent IQ
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
Bought this lens used it is a gem
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2008
|
|
veroman
Online
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4468
|
|
Review Date: Apr 11, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
• Cost
• Range
• Build
|
|
Cons:
|
• Not at all suitable for full frame
• Serious CA issues
• Poor rendering of fine detail
• Serious edge distortions on full frame
|
|
|
It's always difficult to impossible to know if one has gotten a less-than-stellar sample of a lens or if, in fact, this is the way the lens pretty much behaves in general.
I was looking for a cost-effective way to go wider than 20mm on my 5D when the situation required and decided to give this generally well-received Tamron 17-35 a try.
I found it to be riddled with problems and requested a return authorization the same day I received it.
I have no idea how it might perform on a crop camera, so I gave it a middle-of-the-road overall rating rather than a rating of "1", which is what I would give it if crop-cameras didn't exist.
Though designed for full frame, this is NOT an adequate full-frame lens. I wouldn't suggest anyone entertain that idea. If full-frame capability is what you need and you're looking to be cost-efficient, then for a couple of hundred dollars more find yourself a good, used Canon 17-40 and be done with it, which is exactly what I did.
Build quality is up to Tamron's usual high standards, and at f/8 between 20mm and 30mm, the lens does ok, but not great or even very good. Lots of CA; lots of distortion and smearing at the edges; an odd, cool color cast; an overall soft look at the edges no matter what. The center is sharp, but not as sharp as an average 17-40 or 16-35. Contrast is ok, but also not as good as the Canons. (You get what you pay for.)
Again, perhaps on a crop camera the whole story changes. I have no idea. The reviews suggest that might be the case. No matter what kind of camera you're going to put it on, if you're going to try this 17-35, purchase it from a reputable retailer who will let you exchange it or obtain a refund if things don't work out.
I have other Tamron lenses that perform superbly. To me, this one lens model seems like an oddball in Tamron's lens line-up. And, yes, maybe I got a really poor copy.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2008
|
|
JackyFong
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp at all focal length and f-stops (Maybe I am lucky to get a sharp copy), AF quite fast even in low light, affordable price, the build looks appealing to me, not to heavy or light
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit noiser than USM but its ok to me, focusing ring in front
|
|
|
I am just turned semi-professional from freelancing. For this change of status, I have decided to get a wider angle lens to replace my EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 II USM kit lens for 300D and 10D. After some serious considerations between EF 17-40mm f4 L USM, Tokina's 12-24mm f4 and this Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4, I chose the latter.
I had got a used copy which is still in mint condition and the previous owner wouldn't mind selling at a cut price because he need funds for a new lens. Tested on site and felt ok. Got home and tested with some still life shots and to my astonishment, all shots at all focal length and f-stops were quite sharp, a little unsharp mask would finished the job!
Thanks to all the comments and reviews over here, I am able to choose carefully. I have never regret so far, but I will have to bring it out for assignments before commenting further.
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2007
|
|
timpdx
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1986
|
|
Review Date: Dec 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Simple, Bang for Buck. Does what it need to do at a very nice price point.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit slow on AF, not really that much slower given this is so wide on a 5D.
|
|
|
This lens is rated here on FM about right were it should be, IMO. 8.5-9.0. When I consider I got it used for under $300 than I put this closer to the 9 end. I have a decent copy, a teeny bit soft in the corners, but that is pixel peeping on a 5D-a demanding camera. It is not a nice as the 16-35L, which I have had the opportunity to try a few times, but then again, the L, even used, is 3-4 times the price I paid. It is nice a and light, and that is appreciated for I travel alot. When I can afford the L, I will probably spring for it, the 16-35L has less barrel distortion. But for now, this is staying in my bag.
|
|
|
Dec 2, 2006
|
|
GEO-hiker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 12, 2006
Location: China
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
price worthy,compact,manufacture quality
|
|
Cons:
|
not as sharp as "L",color is not vivid as "L" .at the price maybe the compare is unfair.
|
|
|
After 2 years with my EF24-70,i suddenly have a ridiculous idea ,I thought i should sell it,and replaced it with a smaller and wider pro lens,becauce i complained the color and sharpness of the images which EF24-70 made was not as good as the EF70-200 one,what a big mistake idea!
after some compare and review reading ,i though this 17-35 is good choice ,but after some try ,i find some softness even at f5.6. By the way, I had used CANON EF17-40 for months,in the same boat with tomron 17-35 on the DLSR ,but on the film camra ,tack sharp,from this point and consider such low price,tomron 17-35 is quite good,but it didn't reach my standard. so i returned this l lens as quickly as possible.
fortunately, my EF24-70 had not sold out.because the marked price was high.
apologize for my grammer and spelling mistake.
|
|
|
Nov 9, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
34
|
154506
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
