Customer Reviews

Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

5 star:		(138)
4 star:		(52)
3 star:		(20)
2 star:		(14)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

This is the kind of lens that makes me wish Canon would understand their market better. Instead of putting out a 17-55mm zoom that everyone can afford, they put out a EF-S non pro lens at a pro price, which has serious quality control issues. Tamron, however, responded.

This lens is quite sharp. It could definately be used for professional purposes. Sharp at 2.8 and much sharper above. After using this lens, the 17-40mm L, as well as the new EF-S 17-55mm, I can honestly say that Tamron beat out Canon in their own game in terms of quality for the money. Great optics, great range, affordable, and a SIX YEAR warranty, as opposed to Canon's weak 1 year warranty. Buy me.

I tested canon 28-105 3.5-4.5, sigma 24-70 2.8, canon 50mm 1.8, canon 18-55 3.5-5.6. I would say this Tamron 17-50 2.8 is my dream lens. I bought canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 for the focal range but was very sad about its softness and returned it. Then I went to sigma. That's a huge, heavy lens and very solid. Based on reviews, it should be very sharp. however, it was not true in my case. No matter how hard I tried, I never got sharp image. I guess I was not lucky enough to have a good copy and returned it in one week. Finally I bought Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. It surprised me from the very first picture. The sharpness is as good as canon 50mm 1.8 prime, the benchmark. Contrast is very good and color too. 7 blade aperture makes very nice blur background. I care so much about sharpness so the lens is my taste. The focusing is very accurate and fast enough, even though not as fast as sigma. Now I never touch canon 18-55 kit lens, the difference is huge. It's true this lens has no IS. But for 17-50mm range, IS is not as useful as for tele lens. The price is excellent considering the top optical quanlity. Now I am feeling I am a pro. :)))

The reasons I choose this lens are:

1. widest angle in the class(most important thing for 1.6X cropping factor sensor camera
2. Very sharp and top quanlity glass
3. light weighted and small and easy to carry
4. 7-blade aperture makes nice background(if you own canon 50mm 1.8 II, you will see its 5-blade aperture makes harsh background)
5. big constant 2.8 aperture through the whole range
6. excellent price

I felt like I was taking a gamble when I bought this lens, because I was not able to find many reviews of it. Given that the equivalent Nikon was almost 3x the price, I decided to take a chance. At this point I still can't give a solid thumbs up or down, so I opted to give it a 3. Here is a short history of my experience:

1) Bought lens from Amazon to use on my D50. It was a joy to have an f/2.8 zoom lens, but I was not totally convinced about the sharpness (which the few reviews I could find said was supposed to be really good). After comparing it to my other lenses and a rented Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 (great lens, but much bulkier and heavier), I determined that it front-focused so much that the subject would always be very slightly out of focus. It wasn't obvious right away, because the front-focusing meant that the background went out of focus really quickly, making for a great depth-of-field effect. The heavily out of focus background essentially made the subject look more focused, even though it really wasn't all that sharp. After much deliberation, I sent it back to Amazon to try another copy.

2) 2nd copy. This one was much sharper but back-focused, which I found to be even more annoying. This would manifest itself by someone's eyes and nose being out of focus and their ears and hairline being razor sharp. After trying to force myself to live with it, I decided I couldn't and sent it off to Tamron for calibration. Several people in lens forums mentioned that this did the trick, so I decided to give that a shot rather than send it back to Amazon (they were out of stock at the time anyway, so it made the decision easier).

3) Tamron told me that they were running slow, so it would take 5 weeks to calibrate it. Again weighing the extra $800 I'd have to pay to buy the Nikon, I decided to send it in. It actually took 8 weeks! And when I wrote them to inquire at the 7 week mark, they said they had no record of it. I think that was just because they had already shipped it, but it did scare me at first.

4) Calibrated lens. My first impression was wow, this thing really is sharp, and I was really glad that I has sent it back in. And that's when I started noticing something strange... many of my shots were looking massively overexposed. I was out on a nice, evenly-lit overcast day, so I wasn't able to figure out why the camera was having such a difficult time metering. After a few more shots, I realized that anything taken at an aperture smaller than f/2.8 would be overexposed, which led me to suspect a problem with the aperture blades. Sure enough, they were stuck wide open, so every picture was at f/2.8, regardless of the actual setting. At this point in the story, I was very unhappy.

5) Tamron customer service. I expressed my frustrations to them in an email over Christmas weekend, and I am happy to say that they responded positively the next business day. They gave me their Fedex #, so that I didn't have to pay return shipping. They also promised that they would keep it for only 2 or 3 days and ship it back right away. That made me feel a little better.

6) ???? I have not received it back yet (should be soon), so I don't have a final recommendation on this lens. My sense is that it will follow the "worth what you pay for it" adage. It will have taken a large investment of time (actually, waiting), but in the end I hope to have a pretty good lens at a relatively bargain price. There have been several times that I wanted to give up and just go buy the Nikon, but not being a professional, it's really hard to justify paying $1200-1300 for a single lens.

Otherwise, the lens is really nice. It's nice and compact for what it does, and what several have complained about as a "really loud focus noise" doesn't seem bad to me at all. It does have some pretty serious distortion, especially at wide angle. It's a complex moustache distortion which isn't correctable with Photoshop's built in correction. I did send in photos to the creator of PTLens, and he calibrated the lens and integrated it into the PTLens plugin (and standalone version). With that, your photos can be essentially distortion-free. It's really impressive how well it works. Of course, I used the lens for weeks before I really noticed the distortion. I took a picture of brick wall and couldn't believe how bad it was. Unless your photo has a continuous horizontal element, you're unlikely to even notice this.

I wish my review could be more conclusive, but I'm feeling ambiguous at this point. Hope that this helps someone trying to decide on this lens.

Alot of people are choosing between the Tamron 17-50mm and the considerably more expensive Canon 17-55 IS. Canon obviously believes this focal length will appeal to the broadest group of consumers, hence why the 18-55 IS is included with the XSI kit. I personally have both the Canon 17-55IS and the Tamron 17-50 and like them both for very different reasons. There are alot of technical reviews that discuss barrel distortion, vignetting, etc, but my review is focused on how well the lens performs if you're a first time DSLR owner like myself who has barely a clue about photography.

What I like about the Tamron 17-50:
-Very small and lightweight. I have it mounted on my Rebel XT, so it makes for a very compact DSLR with a range great for wide angle shots and portraits of people.
-Images are VERY sharp, pretty comparable to the 17-55IS. I shoot in RAW, so I can't comment on color quality much.
-I like the lens cap; its easier than the Canon lens cap to remove while the hood is on.
-Barrel lock: you can lock the barrel so if the lens is stored facing down, it doesn't extend. My Canon 28-135IS does that, and it is annoying.
-It has a maximum constant aperture of 2.8. It is very difficult to find a zoom lens that is this fast for as price as low as this Tamron (the Tamron 28-75 being the other lens that comes too mind). Definitely, NONE of the fast Canon zoom lenses with a constant aperture are in that price category. I think the closest may be a f/4, of you're looking at consumer grade lenses that have apertures that change with the focal length (i.e. f/3.5-5.6).
-Price: It is less than half the price of the 17-55IS. If you have the skill to coax the best out of the lens, your prudent purchase will reward you handsomely, and you'll have money left over to buy a nice camera body.

What I don't like about the Tamron 17-50 as compared to my 17-55IS:
-Autofocus isn't as precise as with the 17-55IS. I have a higher percentage of blurry photos with the Tamron than I do with the Canon.
-Focus ring turns in the opposite direction of the Canon lenses. This makes removing the lens kind of annoying.
-No IS. Some people say that you don't need IS at this focal range. But I do. Maybe I drink too much coffee, but I love IS. I have less blurry photos of my dogs using the 17-55IS than I do with the Tamron. I do get sharp photos with my Tamron, but you don't want to have to sort through literally hundreds of photos just to find a few sharp ones.
-Low light/indoor performance not as good as the 17-55IS. I've discovered I love photos with great depth of field/bohkeh, so I tend to shoot on wider apertures as often as possible. Even when its wide, the Tamron doesn't perform as well as the 17-55IS in low light situations. It is likely a result of a combination of its autofocus/lack of IS. If you're out and about on a sunny day, or are using a tripod, you will likely not experience this too much. But if you're inside on a rainy day, you'll notice this.

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens will certainly give you better photos than the kit lenses will. If you have a smaller DSLR like the Rebel XT, XTI, XS, or XSI, you'll appreciate the small size of the Tamron while giving you very sharp photos. However, I believe you need to have some skills in order to reap the benefits of this lens. Price is a considerable factor as well; you could purchase this lens and an XS body for about the price of the 17-55IS lens alone. We actually picked up this lens and highly discounted Rebel XT as our *small* camera because combined it was about the price of a G10. We bring our 40D w/17-55IS out when we want the low light performance, of we know we're going to take photos. We bring the XT/Tamron 17-50 combo out when we want a camera just-in-case, and we want the photos to be really good. We bring our Canon A570IS when we want something that's very small and don't really care about photos.

If you have the funds, or only want one lens, I would recommend the Canon 17-55 over this lens. It is better built (though its a considerably larger lens), has IS, and has the same optics that Canon's "L" series lens has. On average, the photos of family and friends that I take with the 17-55 turn out better and sharper (and I have fewer discards) than with the Tamron. My skill level is mediocre at best, so I need all the help I can get, and the Canon provides, while the Tamron emphasizes how bad I am at holding the camera steady, though it does reward me just enough that I kept it.

You won't go wrong with the Tamron lens, and for the money and size, it is a great lens. It is worth upgrading to this lens if you only have your kit lens. But keep in mind that after purchasing the Tamron, you'll still want the 17-55IS.


EDIT 12/9/11: I want to point out that Tamron seems to have recognized the consumer's preference for image stabilization (IS) or vibration control (VC), which I stated was one of the reasons I preferred the 17-55IS over the Tamron 17-50. Tamron now has a VC version of this lens.

I have not purchased it and still own both my 17-55IS and the 17-50, and I know there are plenty of reviews out there for it for those who are interested.

I have purchased a Tamron 18-250 that I've been using for a year now, and will hopefully post a review sometime this Christmas season.

Update: I really think this lens is a godsend to the enthusiast, it performs well and is very light and compact. Carrying this lens for hours compared to the more professional and better built, but heavier, Canon Lenses makes it worthwhile to use especially if you consider the saving you get with this lens.



This lens is probably the most interesting among all the wide angel lenses available to Canon crop DSLR users. It offers the best of everything except for a couple of things here and there. Best of all it's price beats all other lenses in that range. But before I start comparing it to other options here is a basic rating of this lens.


RATING: The lens is well built and surprisingly light and compact. It doesn't have the solid L feel but still has a firm feeling that inspires confidence while shooting. Sharpness is at par with other top quality zooms, so much so that at F8.0 and above it matches many primes. Distortion like chromatic aberration and vignetting are about average. Meaning you would probably have to stop the lens down to 5.6-8.0 to eliminate distortions. Focus is quick and right on though a little noisy. Overall, a very good lens.


RANKING: With all of the above in perspective how does it rank? Compared to Canon's 17-40L 4.0 I think the Tamron come on top. Here is a breakdown of the Tamron strenghts and weaknesses compared to the Canon 17-40L.

Strengths
1. Faster lens (2.8 vs 4.0). That can make the difference between taking the shot or missing in a low light situation.
2. It has a wider zoom range (10mm at the telephoto end).

Weaknesses
1. Flare and chromatic aberration control lags behind the 17-40L.
2. solid build but not as solid as the tank-like 17-40L. Some may find that slightly objectionable after using any L lens for many years.

I have had this lens for a month now and have shot a few thousand photos with it in different lighting situations. I own a few other fast lenses and use them all in my work as a wedding photographer. This was the first purchase I have made outside of the Nikon brand name. I am always a big review reader, before I buy kinda guy. Not just with Photography.

First off, let me say this. The lens is very good. I would go so far as to say it is excellent, with all things considered about this lens.

Now I will tell you how to buy it. Go to the shop you favor and use it. I did this and did not buy it on Amazon. I brought one of my cameras (D200) and I used the lens inside and outside of the shop. Then for comparison, I used the Genuine Nikon lens to A-B them together. Tamron has been rumored to have some QC issues, so using the lens copy you are going to actually buy is the best bet, I think. Note: I made samples from each lens at 2.8, f4, f8 and f11. I did them at full wide and full zoom and about the middle range of both lenses I think it was 35mm. I used no flash for these tests.

Here is what I determined from the above exercise. The Nikon lens is definitely much better built. It is much larger and has significantly more weight. It reminds me of a Jr version of my Nikon 80-200mm 2.8D AF lens. A lens I love btw. However, that is not to say that the Tamron was in any way built cheap. In fact it is well built. I use my lenses a lot, but I am very careful with them too. Tamron offers a 6 year warranty VS Nikon's 5 year. The build of the Tamron lens was better than the kit lens sold with most Nikon models, but no where near that of the Nikon lens I am comparing it to. With proper care, the Tamron lens will hold up, no doubt.

Focus was also, noticibly faster on the Nikon lens. However, not dramaticly so. It is more quiet, again, not dramaticly so. Some people have complained about the Tamron being noisy. All I can say is the one I tested was not. It was About as noisy or a little less than my Nikon 18-55 Kit lens was, before I sold it.

Image quality: Honestly, I could not tell the difference here and this is what really sold me on the Tamron lens. The folks at my camera store took the A-B images I took and uploaded them to one of their in store computers for me to really compare them on the spot. Now that is customer service!! I was really hard pressed to see any difference at all in the images and I knew which lens they came from. Both lenses produced images which were very sharp and contrasty in all areas at all focal lengths and stops. I would bet if I mixed them up and said..OK, Pick the Nikon and the Tamron's out of the pile, I do not think anyone would get them right. The only noticible difference was an image taken outdoors at f/11. The Nikon one did seem to be just a tad sharper in the background. I should have taken more images at that range, but on the LCD they both looked good at the time and I was starting to run late, so I didn't. My point was, I do not know if it was lens error or my error on these two particular shots. But like I said, it was minimal differences anyway.

Conclusion: Ok, so the Nikon is a better lens on a number of points. This of course given my highly un-scientific testing results. However, when you consider the cost, it better be superior at something. I opted to buy the Tamron 17-50 because, I could not tell the difference enough to make me justify the cost of the Nikon lens.

I am very happy with this lens and I have no doubts it will last many years. So, do yourself a favor if you are in the market for this lens, use the one you intend to buy first. Make sure you did not get one of the bad copies and I am confident you too will love this lens.

This is my first non-Canon lens purchase, and I'm extremely happy with my decision.

After lots of researches, online reviews, and the test drive at the NY PhotoPlus EXPO last year, I know this is the best walk around lens for my XT. The image is sharp even at the borders, and the color is beautiful. I would say the image quality looks the same as the result from my friend's Canon 17-40L. I'm confident to use any F stops at any zoom range while shooting.

The only complain is the auto focus noise, since it does not come with an ultrasonic motor. But the noise level is acceptable, better than the Canon 50mm f1.8 II, and most likely only happens in low light situation. The focus is fast even though without the USM, anyway.

It comes with a lens hood and Tamron USA 6 year warranty, which is something Canon should be improved.

Base on my research and test drive, only one lens in the same range out perform this Tamron 17-50 f2.8. It is the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 USM IS. However, this new Canon lens cost more than thousand dollars, which is not something I can justify.

This lens has won the 2006/2007 EISA best consumer lens award. If you need a lens with first-class image quality, excellent performance, reasonable price, and best warranty, go for it.

I was looking forward to getting this lens to replace the kit lens for my Rebel XTi. The reviews I read suggested this was a very sharp lens-- as an extra benefit it also has F2.8 throughout.

First, I want to say there was nothing I disliked about the lens. It was comfortable, appeared well made, and the extra weight as compared with the kit lens did not bother me at all. On the other hand, the pictures overall were essentially identical to the kit lens.

At 18mm, the sharpness of the two lens was identical at f5.6 and f9 at the center and slightly better at the edges with the Tanmron lens. At 50mm though, sharpness was slightly better with the kit lens both in the center and at the edges at all appertures where the two lens could be compared. I was surprised and repeated the tests with a tripod and center focusing mode with the same results. Color rendition was equal with both lens. When I switched to manual focus the Tamron lens sharpness did improve. Presumably, the problem therefore lies with the lens "front-focusing" rather than a problem with the optics themselves. If I just wanted to always manually focus, the lens would be fine.

I have now spoken with a number of people who have or have had this lens, and about 60% of people love this lens but almost 40% tell me of very similar problems. Some tell me they have returned the lens and gotten a new lens which was fantastically better while others tell me the second lens had the same problem. This lens has become very popular-- I wonder whether with this popularity and pressure to keep up with demand Tamron's quality control has declined.

In summary, this lens probably has the potential to be a great lens, but you have to get lucky or be persistant in returning the lens until you get a good one which properly focuses. I didn't have the patience and just returned mine and put the kit lens back on. I will say that Amazon accepted the return without any problem.

I am a photography hobbyist, and just started building my gear portfolio for Canon DSLR [EOS 30D] - having switched from KonicaMinolta gear. One of my first objectives was to find a lens that will cover day-to-day photography...

- The lens had to be bright (f4.0 or better)
- It had to be wide angle (28mm equivalent on 35mm or better)
- I was looking for something broader than KM 17-35 I was used to.
- The lens had to provide great quality pictures.
- The lens and the camera had to be of a manageable size

My first choice was to look at Canon 17-40mm/f4.0 L, or Canon 17-55/2.8 ... The first one was huge, and the light of 4.0 was not that impressive. The second one, at $1,200 was a very expensive non 'L' lens. At this point, I also realized that I was not a professional photographer, and would not be able to haul around either of these heavy lenses - same for 16-35mm/2.8 `L'.

The second step was to look at Sigma and Tamron. It was a toss up between Sigma 18-50mm/2.8 EX, and Tamron SP 17-50mm/2.8. I made the decision to go with Tamron.

It fits all my criteria above. It is relatively small, so I keep it on my camera most of the time. It is very bright, f2.8, and produces great results. It works very well in combination with the EOS30D and the 580EX flash.

I was surprised to see the lens was assembled in China, but the build quality seems very solid.

I have taken a lot of pictures at all ends of the spectrum and do not see any negative artifacts, when viewing at 1600x1200 on a 20" monitor, or blowing up to 8x10 or 20x30.

The other lenses I have are Canon EF 85mm/f1.8 for portraits, and Canon EF 70-200mm/f2.8 IS - the latter, I still try to find a good use for - it is a phenomenal quality lens, but it is just huge.

I've been using this lens on a Canon 40d for about a month. I've taken a couple hundred shots with it, and I couldn't be happier with my results.

The range and the f/2.8 are great. This lens is capable of taking excellent pictures. I use this lens/camera combination as my primary walk-around kit in the city. For reference, I also have the Canon 17-40 f/4 L, 28-70 f/2.8 L, & 70-200 f/4 IS L which I use primarily on a Canon 1Ds, so I am spoiled by 'L' glass... BUT, the images I get from this Tamron lens are fantastic even when compared to my other Canon lenses.

Honestly, for candid/street photography and pictures of my family & friends, I prefer using the Tamron/40d combo. For landscapes and architecture I prefer my other equipment.

PROS:
- Excellent image quality. The images are very sharp with good color and contrast throughout the range... nice bokeh as well. This is really the bottom line - I don't care how nice the lens build is if the image quality isn't great.
- Compact size/portability (especially compared to my 28-70)

CONS:
- Not the fastest focus, but good enough.
- Focus is a little noisy, but not bad.
- Low light focus could be better.
- Not the best build, especially compared to 'L' glass, but good enough.