Tamron 17-35 DI lens??

[photography By Evangelos]

I was just wondering who has this lens and how do you like it? Pros and Cons of the lens. Also were did you get the best deal?




Angelo 8)

[photography By Evangelos]

Any one??

[TonyKInTexas]

Its only been a few hours since the first post.

I own the 28-75 Di lens and I like it. I was hoping to see if anyone else would chime in.

Mine is pretty sharp, has good color and contrast and is light to carry.

Any one??

[phili1]

I just bougth the 17 to 35 Tamron and I love it. This is a pic at 35mm
http://www.pbase.com/phili1/image/35930578

and here is a shot at 17mm
http://www.pbase.com/phili1/image/35932350

I have a few other shot but this tells the story. I originally purchased the Cano 10 to 22 but was not happy with the distortion at 10 and 17mm and the sharpness left allot to be desired, so I opted for the Tamron and I am happy I did now I have the 28 to 75 and the 17 to 35 and the 28 to 75 makes an awsome portrait lens.

[Adam Hicks]

Thanks for that review... I was waiting for the 10-22, but it just doesn't look too impressive. I think I'll save some $ and go with the Tamron. Plus 17mm at f2.8 will be quite handy for indoor group shots, etc!

Adam

[WestFalcon]

I think popular photography reviewed this lens very favorably..can't remember when though

[pcasciola]

Phili, thanks for posting those comparison pictures. I just wish I could see the Sigma 12-24mm on there too, but oh well, I'm sure someone else will do that comparison soon enough.

At 17mm, the Tamron definitely looks way sharper than the Canon 10-22mm from your sample shots, but again, with the 1.6x crop factor 17mm is just not that wide, and the Canon's strength is it's ability to go down to 10mm, not it's sharpness at 17mm. With my 18-55mm kit lens I find myself constantly wanting to go wider. I like the room with the couch as an example of what the 10mm can do. At 10mm your getting almost the whole room in frame. And on the picture of the house, you are getting a whole other house in there at 10mm compared with 17mm. I still think you had a bad copy of the Canon or hand shake or something, because every other review of the 10-22mm has been very favorable so far.

Here are some better examples of the 10-22mm capabilities that I came across (last 6-7 pics are all 10-22mm) (http://www.pbase.com/r53lanc/canon20d)

I've seen a bunch of other great sample pics with the Tamron 17-35mm, so, I'd have to say the cons about it seem to be it's widest effective focal length is only 28mm on a 10D/20D/300D, and it's a touch slower at 35mm compared to the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8.

Angelo, have you considered maybe getting a prime and a zoom? For good 17mm performance for that occasional wide shot, check out the Tokina 17mm which in my opinion is a bit better than the Tamron 17-35mm, and then maybe the Tamron 28-75mm as a zoom, which from what I've seen also outperforms the 17-35mm in the overlap range and is a little faster. You can get both of those lens for around $700. If it weren't for my ultra wide angle needs, that's probably what I'd go with at this point, but right now I'm leaning toward the Canon 10-22mm or Sigma 12-24mm, and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di.

Now, phili, go rake some of those leaves. :lol:

[drisley]

Those last few 10-22mm pictures look pretty good at 100%.
They have good sharpness and contrast. The only drawback is distortion, which I guess can't be helped.

[Adam Hicks]

And price :(

We just need a good Canon prime 12mm 2.8. It seems like 10mm might be trying a bit too hard. Give me a nice bright prime and I'd be happy as a little girl!

Adam

[pcasciola]

We just need a good Canon prime 12mm 2.8.

I'll second that. (And I'll bet drisley will as well).

[phili1]

Phil C I was on a web site where he compared the different sttings on the Sigma 12 to 24. 12 - 17 - 24

when I veiwed his pics I saw that the only differencve from 12 mm to 17 mm was an addtional 2 feet on either side, so it picks up 4 feet width wise, not that much of a difference.

Oh by the way I took into consideration hand shake so I tripod mounted it in themorning and did a comparison and it still was unsharp for the same subject.

My problem with the distortion was that it was on the right side and very little on the left.

Four reviews on Fred Miranda has it looking good, maybe I got a bad one, that does happen. My conclusion after a half hour with the salesman showed wiyh the Kodak sign, it was unsharp with the Canon but sharp with the Taamron.

[photography By Evangelos]

So were is the best place to get a really good price on the lens I am seeing $499 to $489.





Angelo 8)

[phili1]

I paid $479.95 at Unique Photo.

[Adam Hicks]

$479 at B&H as well. They're about as reliable as it gets IMO.

Adam