Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 132
 Best wide angle zoom lens. July 20, 2006
Linan Chen (Chicago, USA)
161 out of 165 found this review helpful
I tested canon 28-105 3.5-4.5, sigma 24-70 2.8, canon 50mm 1.8, canon 18-55 3.5-5.6. I would say this Tamron 17-50 2.8 is my dream lens. I bought canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 for the focal range but was very sad about its softness and returned it. Then I went to sigma. That's a huge, heavy lens and very solid. Based on reviews, it should be very sharp. however, it was not true in my case. No matter how hard I tried, I never got sharp image. I guess I was not lucky enough to have a good copy and returned it in one week. Finally I bought Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. It surprised me from the very first picture. The sharpness is as good as canon 50mm 1.8 prime, the benchmark. Contrast is very good and color too. 7 blade aperture makes very nice blur background. I care so much about sharpness so the lens is my taste. The focusing is very accurate and fast enough, even though not as fast as sigma. Now I never touch canon 18-55 kit lens, the difference is huge. It's true this lens has no IS. But for 17-50mm range, IS is not as useful as for tele lens. The price is excellent considering the top optical quanlity. Now I am feeling I am a pro. :)))
The reasons I choose this lens are:
1. widest angle in the class(most important thing for 1.6X cropping factor sensor camera
2. Very sharp and top quanlity glass
3. light weighted and small and easy to carry
4. 7-blade aperture makes nice background(if you own canon 50mm 1.8 II, you will see its 5-blade aperture makes harsh background)
5. big constant 2.8 aperture through the whole range
6. excellent price
Talk about bang for your buck! October 9, 2006
Leetsauce (San Jose, California)
71 out of 71 found this review helpful
This is the kind of lens that makes me wish Canon would understand their market better. Instead of putting out a 17-55mm zoom that everyone can afford, they put out a EF-S non pro lens at a pro price, which has serious quality control issues. Tamron, however, responded.
This lens is quite sharp. It could definately be used for professional purposes. Sharp at 2.8 and much sharper above. After using this lens, the 17-40mm L, as well as the new EF-S 17-55mm, I can honestly say that Tamron beat out Canon in their own game in terms of quality for the money. Great optics, great range, affordable, and a SIX YEAR warranty, as opposed to Canon's weak 1 year warranty. Buy me.
 Great budget lens for upgrading your kit lens, but not as good as Canon's 17-55 IS December 24, 2008
Raivyn (CA)
62 out of 65 found this review helpful
Alot of people are choosing between the Tamron 17-50mm and the considerably more expensive Canon 17-55 IS. Canon obviously believes this focal length will appeal to the broadest group of consumers, hence why the 18-55 IS is included with the XSI kit. I personally have both the Canon 17-55IS and the Tamron 17-50 and like them both for very different reasons. There are alot of technical reviews that discuss barrel distortion, vignetting, etc, but my review is focused on how well the lens performs if you're a first time DSLR owner like myself who has barely a clue about photography.
What I like about the Tamron 17-50:
-Very small and lightweight. I have it mounted on my Rebel XT, so it makes for a very compact DSLR with a range great for wide angle shots and portraits of people.
-Images are VERY sharp, pretty comparable to the 17-55IS. I shoot in RAW, so I can't comment on color quality much.
-I like the lens cap; its easier than the Canon lens cap to remove while the hood is on.
-Barrel lock: you can lock the barrel so if the lens is stored facing down, it doesn't extend. My Canon 28-135IS does that, and it is annoying.
-It has a maximum constant aperture of 2.8. It is very difficult to find a zoom lens that is this fast for as price as low as this Tamron (the Tamron 28-75 being the other lens that comes too mind). Definitely, NONE of the fast Canon zoom lenses with a constant aperture are in that price category. I think the closest may be a f/4, of you're looking at consumer grade lenses that have apertures that change with the focal length (i.e. f/3.5-5.6).
-Price: It is less than half the price of the 17-55IS. If you have the skill to coax the best out of the lens, your prudent purchase will reward you handsomely, and you'll have money left over to buy a nice camera body.
What I don't like about the Tamron 17-50 as compared to my 17-55IS:
-Autofocus isn't as precise as with the 17-55IS. I have a higher percentage of blurry photos with the Tamron than I do with the Canon.
-Focus ring turns in the opposite direction of the Canon lenses. This makes removing the lens kind of annoying.
-No IS. Some people say that you don't need IS at this focal range. But I do. Maybe I drink too much coffee, but I love IS. I have less blurry photos of my dogs using the 17-55IS than I do with the Tamron. I do get sharp photos with my Tamron, but you don't want to have to sort through literally hundreds of photos just to find a few sharp ones.
-Low light/indoor performance not as good as the 17-55IS. I've discovered I love photos with great depth of field/bohkeh, so I tend to shoot on wider apertures as often as possible. Even when its wide, the Tamron doesn't perform as well as the 17-55IS in low light situations. It is likely a result of a combination of its autofocus/lack of IS. If you're out and about on a sunny day, or are using a tripod, you will likely not experience this too much. But if you're inside on a rainy day, you'll notice this.
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens will certainly give you better photos than the kit lenses will. If you have a smaller DSLR like the Rebel XT, XTI, XS, or XSI, you'll appreciate the small size of the Tamron while giving you very sharp photos. However, I believe you need to have some skills in order to reap the benefits of this lens. Price is a considerable factor as well; you could purchase this lens and an XS body for about the price of the 17-55IS lens alone. We actually picked up this lens and highly discounted Rebel XT as our *small* camera because combined it was about the price of a G10. We bring our 40D w/17-55IS out when we want the low light performance, of we know we're going to take photos. We bring the XT/Tamron 17-50 combo out when we want a camera just-in-case, and we want the photos to be really good. We bring our Canon A570IS when we want something that's very small and don't really care about photos.
If you have the funds, or only want one lens, I would recommend the Canon 17-55 over this lens. It is better built (though its a considerably larger lens), has IS, and has the same optics that Canon's "L" series lens has. On average, the photos of family and friends that I take with the 17-55 turn out better and sharper (and I have fewer discards) than with the Tamron. My skill level is mediocre at best, so I need all the help I can get, and the Canon provides, while the Tamron emphasizes how bad I am at holding the camera steady, though it does reward me just enough that I kept it.
You won't go wrong with the Tamron lens, and for the money and size, it is a great lens. It is worth upgrading to this lens if you only have your kit lens. But keep in mind that after purchasing the Tamron, you'll still want the 17-55IS.
How does it rate? More importantly how does it rank? July 9, 2006
Abdulrahman Aljabri (Jeddah)
111 out of 121 found this review helpful
Update: I really think this lens is a godsend to the enthusiast, it performs well and is very light and compact. Carrying this lens for hours compared to the more professional and better built, but heavier, Canon Lenses makes it worthwhile to use especially if you consider the saving you get with this lens.
This lens is probably the most interesting among all the wide angel lenses available to Canon crop DSLR users. It offers the best of everything except for a couple of things here and there. Best of all it's price beats all other lenses in that range. But before I start comparing it to other options here is a basic rating of this lens.
RATING: The lens is well built and surprisingly light and compact. It doesn't have the solid L feel but still has a firm feeling that inspires confidence while shooting. Sharpness is at par with other top quality zooms, so much so that at F8.0 and above it matches many primes. Distortion like chromatic aberration and vignetting are about average. Meaning you would probably have to stop the lens down to 5.6-8.0 to eliminate distortions. Focus is quick and right on though a little noisy. Overall, a very good lens.
RANKING: With all of the above in perspective how does it rank? Compared to Canon's 17-40L 4.0 I think the Tamron come on top. Here is a breakdown of the Tamron strenghts and weaknesses compared to the Canon 17-40L.
Strengths
1. Faster lens (2.8 vs 4.0). That can make the difference between taking the shot or missing in a low light situation.
2. It has a wider zoom range (10mm at the telephoto end).
Weaknesses
1. Flare and chromatic aberration control lags behind the 17-40L.
2. solid build but not as solid as the tank-like 17-40L. Some may find that slightly objectionable after using any L lens for many years.
 I really wanted to like this lens... November 16, 2006
P. Roberts
79 out of 86 found this review helpful
I was looking forward to getting this lens to replace the kit lens for my Rebel XTi. The reviews I read suggested this was a very sharp lens-- as an extra benefit it also has F2.8 throughout.
First, I want to say there was nothing I disliked about the lens. It was comfortable, appeared well made, and the extra weight as compared with the kit lens did not bother me at all. On the other hand, the pictures overall were essentially identical to the kit lens.
At 18mm, the sharpness of the two lens was identical at f5.6 and f9 at the center and slightly better at the edges with the Tanmron lens. At 50mm though, sharpness was slightly better with the kit lens both in the center and at the edges at all appertures where the two lens could be compared. I was surprised and repeated the tests with a tripod and center focusing mode with the same results. Color rendition was equal with both lens. When I switched to manual focus the Tamron lens sharpness did improve. Presumably, the problem therefore lies with the lens "front-focusing" rather than a problem with the optics themselves. If I just wanted to always manually focus, the lens would be fine.
I have now spoken with a number of people who have or have had this lens, and about 60% of people love this lens but almost 40% tell me of very similar problems. Some tell me they have returned the lens and gotten a new lens which was fantastically better while others tell me the second lens had the same problem. This lens has become very popular-- I wonder whether with this popularity and pressure to keep up with demand Tamron's quality control has declined.
In summary, this lens probably has the potential to be a great lens, but you have to get lucky or be persistant in returning the lens until you get a good one which properly focuses. I didn't have the patience and just returned mine and put the kit lens back on. I will say that Amazon accepted the return without any problem.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 132
|
