Bookmark and Share




User Lens Reviews

Tamron SP AF17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]
Show:  Order:

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful

Sharper than Canon's own 17-40 L, Saturday, 05 December 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
This is a great lens. It delivers the vivid colors and super sharp images all across the focal range. It's light and compact so so you will barely know its there especially if you are use to heaver lenses like Canon 16-40 F/4L, this lens closest rival. This is no "L" lens when it comes to build quality and autofocus speed, but I will give it a slight edge on image sharpness and it is about half the price of Canon's. I would rate the auto focus and build about 7 out of 10. It should stand up to good use over the years as long as nothing to major happens. I would say this lens is definitely the better choice over the Sigma version. Another advantage with the Canon lens besides what I already said is the Canon can be used on full frame cameras, this lens unfortunately can not. So when deciding on which lens to get this will be a area to give some thought. Overall, this lens can not be beat for the price.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

Excellent, Wednesday, 18 November 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
4.3
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
5.0
Excellent lenses. Pretty much always mounted on my camera.
Why should you care what I think?
My relationship with this item: I own it
Conclusions at a glance
Would you recommend this Item: Yes
Pros: Light, sharp, good aperture
Cons: noisy AF
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 15 people found the following review helpful

Not the most durable lens., Thursday, 29 October 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
1.0
Sharpness
1.0
Build Quality
1.0
AF Speed
1.0
Value for Money
1.0
Sharp and fast lens but drop it once and it will break. I dropped my and the plastic shattered. I have dropped my Olympus lenses that are also made of plastic more than once but they have never shattered. The only damage is a couple of dents. Impact damage is not covered under Tamron warranty so now I'm out of a very expensive lens. Oh it's also very loud.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

My number one lens, Saturday, 24 October 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
5.0
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
I have used this lens for over 2 years on a Canon XTi and XSi. I have shot 20,000 or more exposures using it for wedding, seniors and family pictures. It is extremely sharp. I do not use the kit lenses which came with the cameras and sold them off right away. I have made 24x30 prints which look wonderful. I had a problem earlier this year with this lens. I was getting an error message. I contacted Tamron, found my old receipt and sent it in. They fixed the lens for free. Tamron lens come with a 6 year warranty which is nice if you use the lens as much as I do. Make sure to hold on to your receipt in case you need a repair.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful

My first wide lens, Thursday, 08 October 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
4.3
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
4.0
Just got my 17-50 Tamron lens. I cannot beleive how much you can fit on a picture with this lens. I used to own a 28-138 lens and when I took a picture of a tree- I could only get about 1/3 of the tree. With this lens I can get the whole tree and more! Comes with a lens hood which stays on my lens. It does not come with a lens case. The only con of this lens is that the AF motor is a little louder than most. It sounds like a dentist drill.I would definatel recommend this lens over the canon models. Canons costs about $600 more. I have been buying third party lenses lately and have gotten equal results compared to Canon models.
This lens also has an f stop of f/2.8 throughout which makes this a fast lens.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

BEST bang for buck lens EVER, Monday, 28 September 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
4.5
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
4.0
Simply put the image clarity you get with this lens is amazing. When you factor in that this glass is 50% of the cost of what you need to spend for a similar canon lens (which is NOT an L lens). The Canon 17-55mm sells for over $1k. The L glass 16-35mm sells for $1500. This glass compares to the L glass I own - I own the 24-70mm L and the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L (which is the BEST glass I have ever seen).

The brightness - the ability to shoot in low light and this is a tiny lens compared to my L glass and light. Not light as in cheap - but light as in not heavy like the 24-70mm L. it shoots very sharp - not as sharp as my 70-200 - NOTHING is as good as that. The range is very useful - great for shooting people - works super indoors. I bought and returned a 50mm f1.4 canon prime because I felt this lens performed better than the 50mm prime with the zoom set to 50mm.

IF you wish to buy a first upgraded lens for your camera and you can not afford a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L then buy this lens.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 10 people found the following review helpful

Lens great!, But no lens hood, Wednesday, 23 September 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
2.5
Sharpness
3.0
Build Quality
3.0
AF Speed
1.0
Value for Money
3.0
Product page says that an accessory lens hood was included with purchase. Shipment came in a timely manner but I found no lens hood in the box. I'm too lazy to return so I said f**&k it.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Very Sharp at 17mm. Vivid, saturated colors, Tuesday, 22 September 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
After much wrangling over the 17-55 EF-S and the 17-40 EF L, I pulled the trigger on this lens. Somehow I didn't like the saturated colors of the 17-40 and I couldn't justify 1K on an EF-S but otherwise seemingly , much respected 17-55mm.

Out of the box, I got vivid, but cool colors on my 40D when taken in bright sunlight. I fixed it by using higher Kelvin values.

At 17mm, the lens is extremely sharp. When I get the pictures down to my PC monitor, I am like 'whoa'! The colors are very vivid, bright and saturated (using a slight step up in saturation levels in the 40D).
In low light, I have not missed IS. The 2.8 aperture coupled with the 40D's noise-free to very low noise ISO capabilities, has let me capture blur-free shots (for eg. in the Smithsonian).

The lens gets progressively softer and at 50mm, is very soft. If you are using it as a walk-around, vacation lens, it is satisfactory but definitely nowhere close to ,say, the 50mm f/4.

The build quality seems adequate- solid but not too heavy. The zoom and focus feel right.

The AF does hunt a bit in low light to semi-darkness kind of situation. But again, this can be partially resolved by specifying the focal points in the 40D. But in all fairness, if the light is very low, I'd rather let it hunt to let me know it is unable to focus, than focus on something I didn't want. Again, the 40D has a limiter on how much the AF hunts.

I strongly recommend this as an above-average general purpose lens. Upgrade to specific primes as the need arises.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

BEWARE AMAZON PACKING, Monday, 14 September 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
4.0
I gave the lens a 5 as it meets or exceeds expectation, but I had to add to the numerous complaints on this and other lenses at Amazon about the completely inadequate packaging of lenses.

In looking at lens reviews I saw many complaints about the way these delicate pieces of glass and electronics are packaged by Amazon. I was absolutely amazed when I opened my package to find NO PROTECTIVE PACKING WHATSOEVER IN THE BOX. The lens was left to bounce around inside the amazon box during the shipping. Having paid $20 for shipping, I would expect at least some bubble wrap between the manufacturers box and the outer container. This will be the last piece of camera equipment I buy from Amazon.

There is no excuse for a vendor of this magnitude to be selling fragile electronics and yet not package it correctly. This is not a book. I have entered a packaging complaint and will also be letting Tamron know about this flaw in their supply chain.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

A Good Lens, Saturday, 12 September 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
4.0
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
3.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
4.0
I bought the Tamrom AF 17-50mm F/2.8 for its shallow depth of field throughout the focal range and AF in low light photography to replace my Canon kit 18-55mm. It has performed very well in most cases. It does focus in lower light and has the nice depth of field. Some reviewers have complained it's noisy. While it is compared to the USM Canon I found it not bad and have forgotten about it most of the time I shoot. The barrel does turn opposite Canon for zoom but that hasn't bothered me any. I've had significant chromatic abrasion in one shot of over 1,000 shots and minor vignetting on occasion. I miss the IS from my Canon kit lens and have had some shots blurred by camera motion. But that is only a factor when I have to move quickly to a shot. Overall I'm very happy with the lens. I have the depth of field and better low light AF I bought it for. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Len would be much nicer but at $500+ higher cost. If you're on a budget like me buy the Tamron. If you want and can afford better buy the Canon.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Excellent glass, Thursday, 03 September 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
5.0
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
This is one of the best purchases I made after I bought my Rebel XSI. I sold my kit lens (which wasn't a bad lens at all) and went for this one after reading all the great reviews. I do not regret this one. Excellent copy and it has served me really well. Great for use indoors, the 2.8 fixed aperature really helps. Colors are excellent and I get a lot of keepers. Construction is pretty solid. This one stays on my camera most of the time.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

Very sharp, capable lens, Saturday, 04 July 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
5.0
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
The Tamron has replaced my kit lens (22-55) that came with the Rebel XT.

Pros:

* The extra wideness of the lens is greatly appreciated.

* One thing that you will keep hearing people say about the Tamron 17-50 is the sharpness. This is true. Shoot with a tripod and shutter release cable and it's not too hard to get tack sharp.

* Build quality is solid, and the autofocus is very fast. Yes, it does make a little bit of noise when autofocusing but it's such a non-issue that I would not bother with it unless you needed absolutely silent ring USM focusing.

* Constant f/2.8 throughout the focal range.

Cons

* Just heavy enough to make me think about putting on the 50mm f/1.4 as a walkaround lens. However, the range of the lens along with the IQ generally has me going about town with the Tamron.

Other

I was having trouble getting sharp pictures when I first got the Tamron. It ended up not being a Tamron issue but a me issue. I was hand holding most of my photos and shooting at least 1/FL. What I was not taking into account was the 1.6 crop factor of the APS-C sensor. Once I started taking photos faster than 1/FL*1.6, things sharpened up considerably.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

Very happy with this lens, Sunday, 14 June 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
5.0
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
I looked at lenses for months trying to figure out which was the best to pair with my flash for indoor pictures of kids. I had the Tamron 18-200mm and while I was happy with the reach it focused way too slow and the aperture was 3.5-6.3. I ended up selling that lens and buying this one. I'm really glad I did.

Positives:
1. The first thing I noticed about the 17-50mm was the focusing speed. It makes noise (a little) but it's really fast and accurate. 3x the speed of the 18-200. I hardly ever miss focus indoors with the 430ex II flash assist lamp on and it's lighting quick. Outdoors the focus speed is as fast as I could ever want.

2. Fast 2.8 max aperture.

3. My pictures are always very sharp even using an aperture of 2.8

4. The closest focus distance is much closer than the 18-200. 10.6 inches is very close when zoomed into 50mm.

5. The 7 blade aperture along with the 10.6 inch min focus distance produces great looking bokeh.

6. The build quality is solid, not plastic feeling.

7. $500+ cheaper than the Canon 2.8IS

8. 6 year warranty! (Canon has a 1 year warranty)

Negatives:
1. There's some obvious distortion at 17mm however it's only noticeable if your looking for it and it's easy to correct using software.

2. AF is a little noisy (but very fast)

3. The 18-200 Tamron I owned had very similar build quality and ended up letting quite a few dust specs inside the lens. They didn't affect image quality but it still bothered me. So far I've found 1 tiny dust spec inside the lens, so this may or may not be a problem but I thought I would mention it since my last Tamron experienced this.

A friend of mine got the Tamron 28-75 and I have to say that I like this lens a little better. As far as sharpness goes, both are great but the 17-50 has much better build quality. The 28-75 feels more plastic that I'm used to. I also prefer the wide 17mm angle to the extra 25mm but that's just me. Overall I'm extremely happy with this lens. It hasn't left my camera for 3 months and I plan on using it until it falls apart.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

Lens most used, Saturday, 06 June 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
I really like this lens. It's very sharp and produces fantastic results with my 40D. Great low light performance, good bokeh, and fast focus. I have had no focus problems with my copy that a few people have complained about. The only fault I have is that it's not ultrasonic so the noise is louder than Canon's, but by no means unacceptable and so fast I hardly notice it anymore. After lots of research and testing other lenses in this range I found this to be the best lens and also about $300 cheaper than Canon's 17-40mm which was my next choice. In most situations this lens stays on my camera more than any other.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

Excellent walk-around constant f/2.8 lens, Thursday, 28 May 2009


Overall rating (weighted)
3.8
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
3.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
4.0
This lens does not seem to get the credit it deserves. It is very sharp, especially at f/4 and smaller apertures. It peaks at around 35mm f/5.6 where it is extremely sharp edge to edge. Color rendition is excellent.

Autofocus is quick, partly because it is only 45 degrees from close focus to infinity [manual focus is difficult for that reason]. Like all lenses, autofocus does hunt in low light or when the focus point is on an area of low contrast, nothing new here. Auto-focus is a camera-and-lens task, so can't blame only the lens (I am using a Canon XTi 400D).

Build quality is excellent, but not quite L class. I am very happy with this lens. It is a keeper.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no
Results 16 - 30 of 139

News | Forum | Lens Reviews | Teleconverter Reviews | About Us | Contact Us | Glossary | How To
Lens News | Lens List | © 2008 Lens-reviews.com