 |
|
|
mohitkrishna
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 7, 2011
Location: India
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 7, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp in outdoor settings, very good from f3.5/24mm onwards
|
|
Cons:
|
soft at f2.8, difficult to focus in low light conditions, slow auto focus
|
|
|
When I first started searching for a wide angle multipurpose zoom lens, I shortlisted Canon 18-200mm IS, Canon 18-55mm IS, Canon 17-50mm F2.8 USM, Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 & Tamron 17-50mm F2.8. I read various expert reviews, user reviews and lens comparisons on the internet. Despite very good reviews, Canon 17-50mm F2.8 USM was striked out as it did not fit the pocket. Canon 18-200mm IS & Canon 18-55mm IS were rated average and inferior to any constant f2.8 spec lens in low light conditions. Though, there were various comments w.r.t. non Canon lens like they have slow Autofocus and are noisy, in the end I decided to go for a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 for its constant f number. The model didnot support Optical Image Stabilisation, but it was the best bargain for my moderate budget. There were certain performance related issues listed in the forums with non-Japan manufactured lens, so I purchased a Made in Japan piece.
My experience with the lens is mixed. The build is sturdy and feels good to hold. The zoom ring is a bit stiff and it has not eased with use. The lens is excellent in good light conditions and give sharp photos. However, in low light conditions it struggles with autofocus. At 17mm / f2.8, even with manual focus in low light conditions, it is very difficult to get a properly focussed photo. At 17mm, barrel distortion is noticeable. From f3.5 / 24mm onwards, the results are consistently sharp. With crop factor of 1.6 for my Canon 1000D, focal length of 24 mm actually translates to 38mm and it doesnot remain a wide angle lens in enclosed spaces with poor lighting, as one would want to. Similarly at f2.8, the photos are not consistently sharp and so I avoid f2.8, the very reason that guided me to buy the lens. The autofocus is a bit noisy and slow, however the Canon counterpart with Image Stabilisation and USM motor is 3 times costlier, so no regrets. Initially I struggled with this lens. However, now I have adopted to it and use it with confidence.
|
|
 Jan 7, 2011
|
|
mr500cm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 25, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Nov 30, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp, great warranty and a great price and a constent f2.8!
|
|
Cons:
|
None yet.
|
|
|
Wow, I have this lens for five years and its my main candid lens when shooting weddings/bar mitzvahs. Its cheap compared to Nikon glass and very sharp. The AF is a tad slow but maybe I'm being too picky.
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2010
|
|
Leftimage
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $360.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build Quality, Image sharpness, color rendering, wide angle ability, price, fast AF, inclusion of hood, 7 year warranty.
|
|
Cons:
|
MF ring, AF reliability and loudness, the fact it's not a Canon. APS-C only
|
|
(I should point out my copy AF'd perfectly out of the box; if working as it should, the AF will simply creep a little in low light, and not do so well with minor adjustments. Otherwise it works great. It's safe to say really disgusted users were dealing with a ''bad'' copy, which has been recognized in early-production models. Mine is a 2010 and works as it should)
_____________________________________________________
So, like many of you, I was looking to replace the soft-as-heck-but-still-good-value 18-55 IS kit lens that came on my Canon body (a t2i). After considering the 17-85, 17-40L, Sigma equivalent and, to a lesser degree, 15-85 and 17-55IS (both above my $ but still looked at), I chose the Tammy.
Impressions:
- Build: excellent quality, feels more metal than plastic, great zoom ring, cheap manual ring, GREAT weight and dimensions for smaller bodies (t1i to 7d sized). Makes 18-55 look like a farce, betters 17-85 and sigmas. Most similar, albeit slightly inferior, to 17-55 and 15-85) but hood and caps are superior.
-Functionality: great zooming (smooth turning and ring feels great (dampened)), only 17-40L zoomed as smoothly imo, focusing system is so-so, it's cons being inconsistent precision, oddly placed manual ring/switch and some creeping in low-light. Most annoying sound of AF makes us forget it is generally very fast and efficient. Particularly for travel and casual shooting, I found the AF satisfactory. 2.8 aperture speaks for itself, it's amazing how it contributes to shooting options.
-Image Quality: Breathtaking, period. Even with strong expectations I expected less. Bright, crisp, sharp as tack, lush colors, you name it. Most impressive was this lens' sheer width (almost sure it goes to 16!) and performance from 17-35. CA, vignetting and barrel distortion all hardly an issue (unlike kit lens). A touch stopped down gives terrific corner sharpness!! IQ advantage over the competition was so obvious I could confirm it in the camera store. I couldn't believe how it easily outperformed Canon's 17-40L and 17-85 at the same aperture settings. Only the 15-85 and 17-55IS seemed to perform a touch better above 35mm (same apertures)
Conclusion: If you're an objective enough shopper, then you'll fully appreciate this lens. From my testing perspective, it was most baffling when comparing to 17-40L to think that this lens was below 500$. Put a Canon name-tag on it and it would be the king of the consumer coop, quite simply; it's better than 18-55, 17-85, Sigma lenses in every respect, better than 17-40 in IQ, as good as 15-85 in IQ (sometimes better) and build, only slightly inferior to 17-55 (though the smaller size and price are nice). No illusions here, the 16-35 2.8L destroys them all (I tested it for fun)
If you have to have the Canon brand, don't buy this lens. Otherwise, buy this lens. Even with a handsome budget, unless you already own all of the lenses you've considered, I would still recommend the Tamron over the 17-55IS (price difference = a 70-200mm f4 L, or even a 50mm 1.4 + 85mm 1.8!!) I mean, the 17-55 doesnt even have the advantage of working on a full-body.
_____________________________________________________
Here are some shots I took with the 17-50 and a T2i (keep in mind the reduced quality from JPEG conversion)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5197311653/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5195456460/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5191203770/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5178917909/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leftimage/5113324062/
Oh and here's an interesting comparison on the digital-picture charts (Glaring IQ superiority to 17-40L) :
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2
__________________________
Bravo Tamron, for a great lens.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2010
|
|
cburdick1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 4, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Nov 8, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $425.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Low price, good build quality, 6 year warranty, awesome customer service, great image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
No image stability in this model, but I find that I don't really need it.
|
|
|
I purchased the 17-50 in June of 2009 and I love this little lens. It is sharp, focuses quickly and provides me with great backgrounds at all focal lengths. This is a great step up from the 18-55 kit lens that comes with many of the Canon crop body cameras.
As for the noisy focusing, I can say that I do not find it a problem. Sure, it isn't as quiet as the USM in my Canon 10-22, but that lens is damn near SILENT when focusing. The Tamron isn't silent, but it's not like "Robocop" as one reviewer said. I take lots of candids of family and friends and no one has remarked at the AF noiso of the lens. Look at it this way: point and shoot cameras make a bunch of noise when zooming and focusing and this lens is no louder than any of those. Sure, during a quiet wedding ceremony it might be a nuisance, however if you are a pro, then you are going to have L glass and not this lens... if you are a guest at the wedding, put your camera down and enjoy the ceremony and shoot candids during the reception.
|
|
|
Nov 8, 2010
|
|
Fastkids
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 17, 2010
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice selective focus. Very good in low light (F2.8)
|
|
Cons:
|
Small AF/MF switch
|
|
I bought this lens to replace my Nikkor 18-55 kit lens. I should have done that earlier.
It's a great lens which gives you very nice images in low light situations. It has a very nice DOF (see my 2 first shot examples)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5094071893/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5094071511/
I see lot's of people compaining about the noisy AF. I can't say it's noisy.... Yes it's not completly silent, but it does not make that much noise to me. I can use it during weddings without people really 'hearing' it.
Its razor sharp and the focus just as fast as the kit lens.
Only down side until now (just 2 days my property): Very little AF/MF switch. I have big fingers 
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2010
|
|
wadefr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 6, 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 6, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Incredible sharpness and detail. f/2.8 aperture. Great Contrast. Solid build. Excellent Warranty (7 years). Light and compact
|
|
Cons:
|
AF hunts in low contrast - lacks accuracy. Short focus ring movement.
|
|
|
I bought this lens to replace my Canon 17-85 IS, which I found lacked sharpness. I was not disappointed. This Tamron lens can take immensely sharp and detailed images, and to date I have not found a sharper more detailed lens.
I also own the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II and 70-200 f4 IS. Some claim the 70-200 is the sharpest zoom lens ever produced. While this lens produces more "keepers" than my Tamron, has faster more accurate focus, and better ergonomics, the Tamron can produce sharper, more detailed photos.
This has been especially true since I upgraded to the Canon 7D (18mp) from the 30D (8mp). In it's sweet spot, the Tamron can keep up with the 18mp resolution - the Canon lens cannot. I'd say the charts at SLRgear.com pretty much exactly match my experience in this regard - and they back up what I say here.
The trick with the Tamron is to focus manually in low contrast scenes. However with a bright contrasty target, the Tarmon AF is deadly accurate.
The Tamron is always on my camera. I only change to other lenses in special situations. It is light, compact and well built. I don't treat my lenses particularly well, and the IQ on the Tamron has not suffered from its many bumps and bruises.
My father has also bought one in pentax mount to replace a whole bag full of lenses and has been similarly impressed.
For amateurs looking to catapult their photography to the next level, or for pros who don't rely on an "L" badge to find customers - I'd highly recommend this lens.
|
|
|
Oct 6, 2010
|
|
marp001
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 23, 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 23, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $460.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
image quality, constant max aperture 2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
noisy autofocus, some vignetting on the wide end fully open
|
|
I bought this lens as a replacement for the Canon kit lens. I am perfectly satisfied with it and can recommend it to everybody. You would hardly find better lens in this price range.
The lens is sharp and has great image quality, the only downside is that there is some vignetting visible on the wide end when wide open (but that is not a big deal, see for example http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinpilat/4905305533).
The 17-50 range together with the maximum aperture of 2.8 make this lens almost ideal for indoor shots without flash.
I have some pictures taken with this lens in this set on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinpilat/sets/72157624785184948/
(taken with Canon EOS 1000D (Rebel XS)).
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2010
|
|
LPrimeFreak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 29, 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 29, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, f2.8, fast AF, cheap, recommend above cheap kitlenses!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
Loud AF (like Robocop that moves)
|
|
|
I started with a 40D + Tamron 17-50 2.8 + Canon 55-250 IS + Canon 50 1.4.
My both friends now bought this same beginners set and are very happy with this for the price.
It's ideal if you're on a budget, the best you can get for the money. Don't buy lousy kitlenses like the Canon 17-85 and definitely no superzoom lenses if you're a bit aware of image quality, but immediately buy this Tamron 17-50 2.8 as your standardzoom.
Most important : it's f2.8 + supersharp + fast AF.
Most "startersmistake" is that people want to have only 1 lens, then you don't need a dslr, buy a 18-270 or something then, a dlsr is made for changing lenses to maintain quality!
If you have more cash, get the best : a second hand Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS. This is the best standardzoom for crop cameras!
I replaced my Tamron with this Canon cause I found a good priced 2nd hand Canon. The only negative point about the Tamron was the loud AF, it reminded me of Robocop walking around :-)
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2010
|
|
rideklein
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 2, 2010
Location: N/A
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Jun 9, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $375.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Good-looking lens. Zoom lock.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF is consistently off, hunts a lot, and is very loud.
|
|
|
I own a T1i. The Tamron 17-50 was my second lens purchase, following the 50mm f/1.8 II. I was drawn to it by its performance likenesses (on paper) to the Canon 17-55 and its price. But I was sorely disappointed with the Tamron.
1. It mis-focused probably 75% of the time. I suppose I could have had it calibrated, but there were other issues with the lens that calibration would not have fixed...
2. Its AF hunts a lot in low light. I bought the lens primarily for use in low light situations, not for shallow DOF outdoors.
3. Its AF is very loud. So loud that there are you tube videos capturing how loud it is. Ouch. I mainly shoot family and friends, and candid shots are uncomfortable when the lens is super noisy.
4. It's a good-looking and heavy-constructed lens. In the end though, I think that's all it has going for it.
|
|
|
Jun 9, 2010
|
|
Kurt777
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 7, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 7, 2010
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $400.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great value, good build, excellent colors
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I bought this lens to replace kit lens on 20d. I was very surprised by the good quality pics. this is a great alternative to the Canon 17-55 IS with the price about $700 less. Enough to buy a 50mm 1.4 and an 85mm 1.8. Now that's value.
|
|
|
Jun 7, 2010
|
|
Kurt777
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 7, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 7, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 7, 2010
|
|
wassphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 27, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
|
|
Review Date: Jun 4, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Optical quality. Sharp when focus works. fixed f/2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus is very unreliable/hit and miss and very noisy too
|
|
|
Not recommended for serious shooters. Focus on this lens could become a nightmare unless you're only using it for landscapes with very small apertures. Already sold my copy.
|
|
|
Jun 4, 2010
|
|
Schuit
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 9, 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Dec 21, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great colors, light, 67mm filters are relatively cheap, although made of plastic it feels solid
|
|
Cons:
|
Sometimes AF hunts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2009
|
|
tonyliau
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 5, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Nov 10, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $410.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, lightweight, consistent f/2.8, great focal length for a crop body (27-80mm equivalent), great IQ for the price.
|
|
Cons:
|
IQ (understandably) does not quite compare with the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS which is nearly three times the price.
|
|
|
This is the lens I grab when I don't feel like lugging my heavy L-glass around. I am willing to sacrifice the slight IQ for the convenience of this light, fast zoom. 17-50mm is perfect on a crop body to walk around with.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2009
|
|
Guidenet
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 95
|
|
Review Date: Oct 18, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $299.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very fast, sharp and contrasty.
|
|
Cons:
|
The build quality doesn't match Nikon, but it costs considerably less. The built in motor models whine, chirp and tend to hunt, while the older screw drive models are perfect.
|
|
|
With the screw drive for Nikon F mount, I believe this is the best DX crop camera lens in this particular range. I had a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 for around six months and was dissapointed in the optical quality. It was soft all around. I sold it and purchased this Tamron because I did want this range and had heard wonderful things about it optically.
I tried several copies of the built in motor with its micro motor instead of sonic ring motor as found that they whines, chirped and hunted focus. I then found a left over brand new screw drive model that they heavily discounted to me. Boy was I happy. This lens performs superbly in all ways. It's fast, doesn't hunt, and is incredibly sharp and contrasty. The only negative if it is, is that it has a warmer cast than the Nikon. If I don't like it, it's easily fixed during processing.
I consider this lens to be a couple notches below the 17-55 f/2.8 Nikon with respect to build quality but a couple of notches above that Nikon in optical quality, at least in my experience. I wish that Tamron would embrace sonic ring type focusing motors like Nikon, Canon, Sigma and others.
Promaster rebadges this lens and can be a real bargain with screw drive models still in stock. They are the same lens.
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2009
|
|
transoptic1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 930
|
|
Review Date: Oct 12, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good walkaround for the price, good contrast/saturation, decently sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
AF, tiny manual switch, kind of plasticy
|
|
|
I think this is the best lens in this zoom range, at 2.8 for the price.
I'm ready to upgrade to L glass, but I need to sacrifice a little reach to save bank. I'm thinking the 17-35 2.8L
This lens has served well for a few years, though. Really sharp in the center, stopped down of course; wide open near the edges things get a little fuzzy but nothing hugely disappointing. The colors and contrast are nice, especially on higher-end image sensors.
Auto focus is the Achilles Heel on this lens. It's noisy, searches in low light, and could be faster. It has a tiny switch to switch from auto to manual, which takes a few seconds to find, which can be costly in fast environments. I'm wanting to upgrade to a lens that has full-time manual USM.
But, well worth every dollar I paid.
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
