- Sharp lens
- High Constrast
- Nice Color

- Lens noise

I used Nikon kit lens (18-70mm) for two years with much satisfaction along with my Nikon D70. However, I wanted to see if I may upgrade this kit lens for better quality glass. At first I took a wrong turn and ended up with Nikon 24-120mm 3.5-5.6 VR Lens and I was very disappointed for I felt that it did not out perform the kit lens in any way. After reading many positive reviews and strong recommendation of a friend who is a professional photographer, I decided to give this third party lens a try. After more than 300 shots under various lighting condition, I was simply blown away by this lens. I am very picky about the image quality and I still shoot slides with Contax and Leica rangefinder so I know something about good image quality. This lens is much sharper than the kit lens and it has amazing color and contrast. It is true you can do so much with Photoshop but with this lens you will spend less time staring at the computer screen and more time shooting wonderful images.

- Superb image quality
- Razor Sharp
- Great contrast

- Lens is very noisy

I own Nikon D70 and I used 18 - 70 mm 3.5-4.5 kit lens for over two years.
I must say above mentioned kit lens is very good and it is very inexpensive these days. Although I was happy with this kit lens, I wanted to try out different lenses to possibly upgrade the kit lens. At first I tried Nikon 24-120 3.5-5.6 VR lens.
I tried this despite the mixed reviews I read from different pros and after 100 shots I found the lens inferior in image quality in comparison to the Nikon Kit lens. At the same focal length under same aperture and shutter speed Nikon 24 – 120 3.5-5.6 VR gave very inconsistent images.

When I went to return this lens, one of the professional photographer at the camera store recommended this Tamron 17-50 mm 2.8 lens. Although it has been a while since I used the third party lens, I decided to give this lens a try. After more than 300 shots of various subjects in different lighting condition, this lens truly outperformed the Nikon 18-70 kit lens in every way. The images were very sharp and contrasty. In addition, close up performance was simply superb. Before you trade your Nikon 18-70 kit lens for expensive 17-55mm 2.8 Nikon lens, try this lens! I highly recommend this Tamron lens to everyone who wants to upgrade your kit lens.

For your information, I still shoot slide film with my FM2n and Leica rangefinder so I am very picky about the image quality...I can honestly say this lens is one of the sharpest digital lens I have ever used.

Similar Products Used:

- Various Nikkor lenses

cost, half the price of canons EFs 17-55 IS with comparable IQ
weight very light
well made for price
good focus accuracy for 3rd party lens
6 year warrenty

no full time manual focus, never thought I would miss it but having to switch to manual to adjust is a pain lol
no IS which some times I would like for my automotive work rather than beig able to hand hold fo 1/2
resale will be poor compared to canons

I bought this lens to replace 17-85 IS. having the larger aperture is a better but I do miss the extra 35mm. the lens is sharper thatn the 17-85 but by f8 the advantage is almost gone. it suffers lens distortion and CA than the 17-85 but focus is bit slower but not a problem for what I use it for and its fast enough to keep track of my 2 year old son. The build quality is fairly good and it is light weight too. Filter diameter is same as 17-85 do never had to buy new CP.

Customer Service

never needed yet

Similar Products Used:

canon 17-85
canon 17-40 L
sigma 18-50 f2.8

Constant 2.8 aperature.
Sharpness
Front barrel doesn't rotate during focus
Value for the money.

Not as rugged as the Nikkors, If you're a pro making your daily living with photography, find some way to buy the Nikkor 17-55 2.8. Everyone else will be very happy with this wide zoom.

An excellent value for the money. Here's my take when shooting with this lens on a Nikon D200. First off, it beat the pants off the Nikkor 18-70 3.5-4.5 for sharpness. It has good sharpness at 2.8 and very good sharpness from f 4 through f22 at the 17mm end and gets even better near the 50mm end. Not as sharp as my nikkor fixed focal lenses, but very , very, close.

It exhibits color fringing (Chromatic aberation) at 2.8 that disapears at f4. The CA is worse at the 17mm end. Of couse CA is very correctible in Photoshop.

Focusing speed is just a tad slower than the s-motor nikkor 18-70. Noboby except sports shooters will know the difference. Focus has been spot-on accurate for me.

It has some barrel distortion from 17-35, but what wide digital zoom doesn't. If you're shooting architecture, you should be using a view camera anyway. This is also not a flat focus lens, but you'll only notice that fact if you're shooting flat reproduction work wide open. If that't the case, shoot with a macro lens.

Similar Products Used:

Nikkor 18-70 3.5-4.5 - Ok
Nikkor 18-200 - Dissapointing performance
Sigma 18-50 - Not as sharp as the Tamron

sharpness better than Canon's 17-40mm L except on the corners.

Focus speed is fast. Not significantly slower than Canon's L.

contrast and color same or hair shame of Canon's.

Good built quality and light weight! Feels significantly smaller and lighter than Canon's 17-40mm L. Use this one if you want yourself to look more casual! People won't think that you are professional!

Usuable f/2.8 and very usuable 40-50mm range!

Show out-of-focus on the corners at 17mm with f/2.8. Improved at f/4 and disappeared at f/5.

Cannot focus at some low-light and low-contrast situation when Canon's L can barely work (with non consistent results though). So you need a little more manual focus at low-light situation.

No other obvious "Weakness" although there are many "Could be better" things to list.

An excellent all-around lens for Canon 20D, Digital Rebel/XT. I already had my Canon 17-40mm L before I bought this one. I am thinking of a faster lens (f/2.8) and with a little bit more reach (more than 40mm). This one seems fits the bill. Also I had good experience at Tamron's 28-75mm F/2.8 lens. After confirming its good image quality, I bought one before my Canadian Rocky Mountain trip. After taking a few pictures, I was convinced that I could take only this lens for a extensive (and real on the field) test. After taking 600+ photos with this one, I do have something to say about this lens.

The image quality meets or exceeds Canon's 17-40mm L. I had Canon's 20-35mm in the first place. After getting many un-sharp photos, I swithed to 17-40 and found improvement. Then I switched to Tamron's 17-35mm. It took pictures sometimes sharper than the Canon 17-40 and sometimes not. I later switched them back (with the second copy of Canon's 17-40mm). For 2 years, I have been almost satisfied with this 17-40mm. But now, with the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8, I am hard-pressed to pick one to keep.

On the image quality aspect, the Tamron could win. It gets sharper pictures. The distortion at 17mm seems same or even less than the Canon's 17mm. If we choose f/4 or smaller aperture, the corner sharpness seems well controled even at 17mm. For many pictures at 17mm at f/5, I cannot even see a hint of out-of-focus in the corners, wow! It also renders the colors very beautifully although I don't see better colors than those the Canon lens could deliver. Maybe the Tamron is on the colder side. But it does not affect my post photo editing. The focus speed is fast enough. The high-pitch focusing noise is low and it won't frighten the close by animals away. Only in the low-light situation, the lens show some slowness and uncertainness compare to the Canon 17-40mm (by a small margin, noticeable for not significant). But many times the Canon's 17-40mm did not give me a good focus either eventhough the conformation signal beeped! Is it because I have got a problem Canon lens?

Canon's strength is its quietness and smoothness at focusing and uniformness on the image corners. If you don't mind some light focusing noise and the extension zooming movement, you may better off taking this Tamron. Because it has f/2.8, 50mm range and sharper center images. You can extend the zoom AFTER focusing! This is same as the Canon's L lens. The front element won't rotate so you can use the polar filter! The build quality is very good although can't match Canon's whether-resistant, no-zoom-movement and like-a-tank body!

For more than double the money, you do get even better image quality with 5mm more range and IS. That's Canon's 17-55mm IS. It is your choice which one to pick. I would say, in the normal situation, 95% chances you don't need that 5mm range or IS. So to me, the Tamron fits my purpose better. Also, I have a 17-75mm IS. Unless at some low-light and must-hand-held situation, the 17-75mm lost to this Tamron in any other aspects! So I would prefer Tamron to 17-75mm IS! My real score for this Tamron is 4.75. I would have no reserve to recomend this lens to Canon 20D or Digital Rebel users at $400.

Light. Versatile. WIDE. Reasonably priced.

If I see any at all, it is the plastic case for the glass...but that is a minor..MINOR quibble

I have to state in the very beginning that I am a Nikon shooter. I bleed Nikon yellow, and I have used nothing but Nikon cameras and lenses for almost 35 years. I have become a bit of a Nikon snob my Canon friends say, but what the hell, I say. If I had a series of cars that were as reliable and good as Nikon lenses, I would be singing their praises.

I had a chance to use this Tamron lens on my D200 for a month or so, and I am so glad that I did. This Tamron lens is nothing short of incredible. It is sharp at all f stops, and it is virtually distortion free throughout the entire zoom range. The fact that this lens is an F2.8 throughout the zoom range is a huge plus.

I shoot architectural photography. I need lenses on my digital camera that are less prone to distortion. The Nikkor 20mm D lens is nice, oh so nice, but the crop factor raises its ugly head in close quarters and I lose some valuable information. The 17mm side of the Tamron lens is only 3mm wider, but that little bit is just enough to give me the extra space I need in most shots. I can't shoot everything with it, but more than I can the Nikkor. What impressed me most was the lack of distortion in the lens. Barrel distortion is almost non-existant. Optics being what they are, there will always be SME distortion. What distortion that appears is easily handled in Photoshop.

At 50mm you have a down and dirty macro lens. You can auto-focus within approximately two inches at 50mm and you get sharp, crisp macro shots. Amazing.

If I have any quibble at all, it is in the casing that holds the glass: Plastic. If I was still doing photojournalism, I could not use this lens everyday. It simply wouldn't hold up. But I am NOT doing PJ anymore. If I, or anyone, takes reasonably good care of the lens, it will be just fine. This is a great walking around lens, and it is a must for those times you need to get a bit wider in a shooting situation.

One other thing. I had the opportunity two days ago to run a few shots using the Tamron 17-50 and the Nikkor 17-55. Both DX style lenses, both f2.8. I will put any shot I made with the Tamron against any shot made with the Nikkor in terms of clarity, noise, color and distortion. It is THAT good of a lens. The fact that it is half the weight, and two-thirds the price is a plus in my mind...and my pocket.

I've learned a valuable lesson regarding scoffing at other manufacturers lenses when compared to my Nikkors. The proof is taking my wallet out of my pocket and laying down the $450 street price for the Tamron. I have to give this lens 4.98 stars. The .2 comes off for the plastic. Run to your local retailer and buy this lens. Today. Right now.

Thanks for letting me run off here...

Customer Service

No need for it yet.

Similar Products Used:

Nikkor 18-70 DX
Nikkor 17-55 DX

fast aperture, zoom range, price, weight, image quality, hood encluded

the only weekness I find is the front element is very close to the threads making it easier to damage. I don;t normally use protective fitlers but I am goign to get one for this as I'm worried about the lens element

as the tamron 17-50 is a digital only lens it is small and not very heavy. When attached to a 20D the set up is well balance although the zoom righ is round the wrong way from what I am used to. the focus is acceptably fast and as it is the old type of motor there is a noise but not louder than the shutter. the lens is built very well and the image quality is stunning. For £300 it represents amazing value for money. the canon 17-55 is has less CA and IS but is it worth the extra £500

Customer Service

none required so far

Similar Products Used:

17-85 is, sigma 18-50, canon 18-55

Wide angle, half the price of a Canon 17-40 f/4L. Lens hood included, easy to remove the front cap with the lens hood on. Nice finish.

None for now.

I own this lens for a couple of weeks now, I really like this lens, fast AF, sharp even at 2.8, very nice contrast. I use this lens on a Canon 10D. No problem with this lens.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 17-40 f/4L

Fast constant apeture 2.8
Accurate, quiet autofocus
Excellent value
Sharp
Handles well
I can take it on a hike and be about 1/3 to 1/4 as upset as I would be with comparable L glass if something were to happen to it.

The distortion mentioned above is the only issue I have with this lens and that has been easily enough corrected in post processing.

I bought this lens to get more wide angle out of my 20D. I've had it for about 3 months now and am very pleased with the results I have gotten from it.

It is sharp, fast and quiet. Sharp enough when wide open (2.8), but like most lenses gets it's best performance when stopped down to about f/4 or smaller. The autofocus is fast and reasonably quiet. The only time I have noticed the noise at all is when the focus moves from one end to the other. I have been pleased with the color and saturation of the lens as well. The only bad thing I have noticed is that there is a lot of distrotion at the short end from 17 to a little over 20mm.

The construction feels solid and there are a few design elements that I really like. Lite enough to be easy to carry, but heavy enough to be well balanced. The focus and zoom rings are large enough to be easy to use and are tight enough to be easy to control , but not so tight that they don't operate smoothly. It focuses internally so as not to mess with your polarizer. It has a zoom lock to keep it from drifting when being carried. The included lens hood is easy to use and turns around for storage. With small enough hands I believe a polarizer could still be turned as well because of the petal shape. The lens cap has a release in toward the center, not just on the outside so that it can go on and off with the hood on.

All-in-all I am very happy with the purcahse. Enough so that I later bought Tamron's 28-75 f/2.8 as well. No regrets there either.

Customer Service

N/A

Very Sharp, fast, very small, very light.
Built quality is quite good (it is a plastik lens, but a good one).
Fast AF (and not as noisy I expected)
IR compatible (only a little hotspot in the centre)

For me (and my type of use): almost nothing.

For those who search the perfect lens for no money:

Visible (but normal) distortions at 17mm
CAs at 17mm and large apertures
No AF-S

If you are very, very critical:
There is no protective glas behind the rear lens, so dust can be a problem if you don´t use the rear cap an place the lens on the ground, espacially in other settings thann 17mm.

This lens is a winner!
Built quality is at least adequate, if not better and the optical performance is hard to beat for the price. It is very sharp from f 2.8 (even still better than the Tamron 28-75, which I sold now), has no real flaws and is a perfect standard zoom for DSLRs. Maybe you will be surpriced how small an light it is, not much bigger than a 1,4/50.
Maybe I will write anoother review in one or two month, but at the moment I can´t find anything wrong with it.

Similar Products Used:

Tamron SP 2,8/28-75
Nikkor AF-S 3,5-4,5/18-70
Nikkor AF 3,5-4,5/18-35