Tamron 17-50 2.8 on a 350D

Wondering if anyone has experience with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 on a 350D/rebel XT? Any issues such as focusing problems? I'm basically looking to replace the kit lens and it's a toss-up between the Tamron and the Sigma 24-70 EX 2.8 (given the 1.6x CF I really don't see 24mm as being wide enough).

Would it be too much to ask for some images taken with this combo as well as a picture of the lens mounted on the 350D?

Thanks!

JCO

My housemate has that very set up and it works very well. I'll see if I can sort out a shot of the lense on the camera and maybe some shots taken with it but I would suggest that you would not go wrong by going for that set up.

Works superbly with my 30D - I really can't imagine it would suddenly not work well on a 350D.

I have one on a 20D and it's my fav lens that stays on the camera about 85% of the time

--mike

tamron is better on the focal range, 24 is not wide on a 350D

Pretty solid review w/pics:

http://www.photozone.d​e …/tamron_1750_28​/index.htm

I was debating between the Tammy and the Sigma 18-50 2.8 for the longest time and I ended up getting the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 DC macro and I am very happy with it so far. It's long enough for travel, it's wide enough for landscaspes, it takes close ups/macro, it's sharp, light weight and built well, + it comes with hood and a 5 year warranty and won't break the bank either!

The Tamron is sharp and fast in aperture, but it has problems focusing in low light and has a rather noisy focus motor...

For the brief time I had the Tamron, I found, like Janika, that low light focusing was pretty weak. Became useless to me having f2.8 and not being able to focus. The focus noise did bother me a bit as it sounded a mix of zippy and whiny, but nothing to be concerned about. IQ and build quality was excellent though. If you have no needs for low light, then the tammy is the best bang for the buck.

Do note that this was compared to the 17-85mm IS I had at the time. I finally gave up and got the 17-55mm IS instead.

Janika wrote in post #2025800
I was debating between the Tammy and the Sigma 18-50 2.8 for the longest time and I ended up getting the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 DC macro and I am very happy with it so far. It's long enough for travel, it's wide enough for landscaspes, it takes close ups/macro, it's sharp, light weight and built well, + it comes with hood and a 5 year warranty and won't break the bank either!

The Tamron is sharp and fast in aperture, but it has problems focusing in low light and has a rather noisy focus motor...

That's good feedback, thanks. I keep going back and forth between these two lenses (Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-70) trying to decide which one would be the better frist lens when I get my first dSLR hopefully this year when the rebates start.

I have the Tamron and i cant say enough good things about it considering the cost.
works without any problems on my old 350D and the same on my 400D. seems sharp at all apatures. there is distortion at 17mm but you get that with all lens's to some degree at that FL.
Its very sharp as well. i went for it over the 17-70 as the 17-50 is f/2.8 at all FL and it makes a difference if the lights not good.
I did find though that for me, 17-23mm isnt really needed and so i now use a 24-105L 99% of the time. it just suits my style of shooting better

GF has this little baby and loves it, nice and sharp, none too heavy.