Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 Di (impressions)

[subtle_spectre]

My many months of debating about and seeking opinions on a wide-angle zoom are over....for now. I just bought a Tamron 17-35.

I used it a bit at the shop (yes, I even bought local, so I could do a hands-on) and found its AF to be pretty quick and quiet, so I took it home. The monitor at the shop was crap, but I could see that there was no edge softness that standard sharpening would not cure.

Once home, I was very pleased to feel that the build of the lens, while not "L", is also better than the "kit" lens. It is solid and substantial.

I mounted it to my 1D"N" and took it for a quick spin. The WA view is great, and just what I wanted. Again, the AF is quick and quiet, contrary to some of what I have read. It is much faster and silent than the 35 f/2 and reminds me of Sigma HSM, actually. It is just a tad slower and louder than USM.

Here some samples, all shot at f/2.8.

This first one is straight from camera, no processing other than conversion and resize.:

http://mhaindiana.org/tamron_test/_MG_0569.jpg

Next is a similar shot but with standard USM applied in Bibble Pro:

http://mhaindiana.org/tamron_test/_MG_0570.jpg

Here is one showing its close-up capacity, again with USM:

http://mhaindiana.org/tamron_test/_MG_0565.jpg

And here is a shot showing the WA view at 2.8 and with just standard USM applied:

http://mhaindiana.org/tamron_test/_MG_0573.jpg

Yes, there is some light fall-of at the corners, but I see that as the nature of the beast and I do not presently use FF bodies.

In all, I am pleased with the lens in the first hour I have had it. With two weddings this weekend it will be tested plenty.

[wonny]

It's a great lens! Stays on my camera most of the time...

[Dante King]

the siding of the houses looks like its warping. could you post a crop of that? Congrats. Looks nice!!!

[Diminished29]

I agree with Dante it does look "warped" on that left side house.

[subtle_spectre]

Thaanks! Dante...I see what you are saying about the siding...that's odd. I took a look at the RAW file and it doesn't do that...here is a crop:

http://mhaindiana.org/tamron_test/_MG_0573_1.jpg

[Tee Why]

I've the same lens and it's pretty good, especially considering the speed and the price.
The corners are soft on this lens from looking at the results on photozone.de. It currently doens't bother me when I'm processing the shots, so I'm not going to replace it till I get a FF camera. I have a feeling that then the corner softness will show up and I'll have to either get a 17-40L or pay through the nose for speed and get a 16-35L.

[subtle_spectre]

Yeah...I should say that I made this selection based on performance for price...f/2.8 was important. I would hope a 16-35 to be in the works for next year.

[DavidEB]

Nice lens. am still torn between 17-40 and this one.

the siding on the house is fascinating. looks like a down-sampling artifact -- as you follow the boards from left to right the number of boards drops out and each remaining board appears to get larger. My guess is that the down-sizing routine is skipping over the pixels that have those edges in them. It's a form of aliasing.

[darktiger]

I love my Tamron 17-35. I use to stay on my lens all the time, until I got my 24-105L IS...