Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di

[stephen_g]

Thanks!

It's a very underrated/unknown lens. I can't see myself selling it any time soon, even if I barely use it, sometimes a WA is needed.

[professorman]

I just picked up one of these. I am stoked. I have been looking for one for a while. I am coming from the Canon 20-35mm USM. I wanted the extra wideness from this. I am loving it so far. Mine has a standard size filter, and it vignette badly at 17mm. I guess I need to get a thin filter.

[drummerhc]

I just received the lens today. The AF in comparison is "quieter" and slightly slower than my Tamron 28-75mm. I could only find one video one youtube with this lens mounted on a Nikon body and the AF is WAY faster than mine. Is everybody else's AF similar to this video? or it's faster because Nikon has build in motor?

Here's the link to the Nikon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGp1wV0P63A

Here's the video of my Tamron. Mounted on 5D II.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAQCLVNryH4

[stephen_g]

It's similar to yours on my 1D.

[HoosierJoe]

AF works quickly on my 50D.

[RDKirk]

I've been using one for quite a long time, first on a 10D, then on a 5D, now on a 5D2. Operationally, the only things that annoys me is the lack of full time manual focusing (you can do it, but the lens complains audibly) and the fact that the focusing ring spins when you focus automatically. I'm also annoyed by the variable aperture--I shoot manually (especially with studio flash), so I have to make note of when the aperture changes as I zoom. In my lens, it's at 28mm...although it might be different in other lenses.

On a 24x36mm camera, the fact is that it's noticeably soft in the corners, especially above f/5.6. But wait...all zooms in this range are noticeably soft in the corners, especially above f/5.6. I have not found any consistent difference in image quality between this lens and the Canon L 17-40.

The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II is, I'm sure, a better lens, but if I were in the market for that lens, I would not even be considering the Tamron. This focal length range isn't a "money lens" for me, so I'm not interested in paying that much for what would essentially be a niche-use lens for me.

It's a lightweight lens--a plus. It's not weather resistant (which the Canon lenses are, with filter attached), and I suspect it's not as physically robust.

I can't see focusing speed as a significant factor in a short lens like this--lens movement distance is extremely slight, compared to a telephoto lens. Like most 3rd party lenses, it may seem to have more difficulty finding focus, but you would have to compare it directly to other lenses in this focal length.

[drummerhc]

Originally Posted by HoosierJoe

AF works quickly on my 50D.

Is it as fast as on the Nikon I posted?
I'm considering to return it for the slow AF =(

[HoosierJoe]

Originally Posted by drummerhc

Is it as fast as on the Nikon I posted?
I'm considering to return it for the slow AF =(

Aye! You insult me! Never have I owned a Nikon!

Seriously, I have no idea.

[HoosierJoe]

Originally Posted by RDKirk

I've been using one for quite a long time, first on a 10D, then on a 5D, now on a 5D2. Operationally, the only things that annoys me is the lack of full time manual focusing (you can do it, but the lens complains audibly) and the fact that the focusing ring spins when you focus automatically. I'm also annoyed by the variable aperture--I shoot manually (especially with studio flash), so I have to make note of when the aperture changes as I zoom. In my lens, it's at 28mm...although it might be different in other lenses.

On a 24x36mm camera, the fact is that it's noticeably soft in the corners, especially above f/5.6. But wait...all zooms in this range are noticeably soft in the corners, especially above f/5.6. I have not found any consistent difference in image quality between this lens and the Canon L 17-40.

The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II is, I'm sure, a better lens, but if I were in the market for that lens, I would not even be considering the Tamron. This focal length range isn't a "money lens" for me, so I'm not interested in paying that much for what would essentially be a niche-use lens for me.

It's a lightweight lens--a plus. It's not weather resistant (which the Canon lenses are, with filter attached), and I suspect it's not as physically robust.

I can't see focusing speed as a significant factor in a short lens like this--lens movement distance is extremely slight, compared to a telephoto lens. Like most 3rd party lenses, it may seem to have more difficulty finding focus, but you would have to compare it directly to other lenses in this focal length.

From what I have read by FF Canon users, this lens can have its issues with FF. Yes, I am quite sure it doesn't compare to an L lens. But, it works fine for occasional use. I really like using it indoors with a flash.

[RDKirk]

Originally Posted by HoosierJoe

From what I have read by FF Canon users, this lens can have its issues with FF. Yes, I am quite sure it doesn't compare to an L lens. But, it works fine for occasional use. I really like using it indoors with a flash.

If you compare it to to the 17-40, it's a good lens, optically.

[jaycky]

just picked one up used tonight slowly depleting my mf fleet to get af gear
ahhhhhh yea will take some shots shortly

[jaycky]

[drummerhc]

Coming from Tokina 12-24mm on a crop body, this lens disappointed me a little.
Noticeable distortion and vignette from 17mm-19mm even stopped down. I guess this will do it for now while saving for a 17-40mm.

[RDKirk]

Originally Posted by drummerhc

Coming from Tokina 12-24mm on a crop body, this lens disappointed me a little.
Noticeable distortion and vignette from 17mm-19mm even stopped down. I guess this will do it for now while saving for a 17-40mm.

What I see from directly comparing results here indicate that the 17-40 won't improve IQ by much at all:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R....aspx?Lens=391

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R....aspx?Lens=391

[drummerhc]

Originally Posted by RDKirk

What I see from directly comparing results here indicate that the 17-40 won't improve IQ by much at all:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R....aspx?Lens=391

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R....aspx?Lens=391

Meh~ I guess vignette is inevitable on FF eh?
What about distortion? Is there any similar comparison like this?