Tamron SP AF17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di

I picked up this lens recently to cover the wide end for my digital SLR. I thought about it for a while, because I was also considering the Canon 17-40L. I was able to get the lens for $429, minus the $40 rebate which made it almost $300 less than the canon. My first tests were done side-by-side against my brother's Canon 17-40mm L. As I looked at the 100% crops, the images were almost identical. I would say that this lens is 98% as good as the L lens. This is great for the price. As for the real world tests, I took photos at several focal lengths and the contrast and color was really nice. This lens performs surprisingly well wide open at f2.8. It does a much better job than my Tamron 28-75mm XRDi. Image wise, very very nice. Someone said below that this is a poor man's L lens - it is absolutely true. My only issue with this lens is that if the light is very low, it focuses very slow. Other than that, I'm happy with it.

Optical quality (sharp, contrasty, great color) Price 6 year warranty very light in weight

Slow to focus in low light

Canon 17-40mm L

None needed, but my Rebate came back in a little over one week.

I got this lens to cover the wide end of my tamron 28-70 f2.8 Di w/c was a bargain for the L lens performance at 1/4 the cost of the equivalent 24-70L. The tamron 17-35 is a cross between the 16-35 f2.8L and the 17-40 f4L. It performs just as good as its L equivalent without the price and the weight. It's not as robust as the L's but it is well made and lighter. Nice to carry around. The lens is not as long too. The lens is about 4" long. The front element does not rotate when focusing (good for polarizers), but it does extend or retract when zooming. Zoom ring is smoother than my 28-75 Di. Not as silky as Canon's but it is light and not coarse. It has a nice large petal lens hood that is bayonet twist mount. It's not very useful with the APS crop factor. The glass is not as bulbuous and big as the Sigma 17-35 I have used. It's not as heavy too. It is ligther than the canon or sigma equivalents. Images are sharp and contrasty even wide open. But it gets better even if you stop it down by 1. But it is best to use it at f5.6, 8 or higher to give the corners better sharpness. And unlike others, mine has no flare. I shot some pictures with the the 4:30-5pm sun in front of me and it handled flare very, very well. Sigma would have flared badly. Of course Canon also has good flare control like Tamron. Flare control is very important to me because I tend to shoot with lights I cannot control in some situations. In weddings, for example, the video lights or the chapel lights from weddings get in the way. I did notice flare with my Sunpak UV filter. Very picky. My 28-75 Di is not that picky. Either I may get a B+W or some expensive Hoya or leave it the UV filter off. I tried it off and the flare is gone. I notice a slight purple CA even at f8 at 17mm in some instances. But you have to blow up the picture to 100% to see it and you have to really be looking for it. It's there, but it's not obvious for smaller prints. The CA is gone at longer focal lengths. AF is fast. Not ring USM fast, but you won't wait. It tends to be slower compared to my 28-75 Di, but I remember that the Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 ex hsm, even with hsm, is still hunts. The Tamron does not do so as much. I also notice that the tamron does not move or re-focus on when you repeatedly press the shutter button halfway to re-aquaire focus. The Sigma seem to hunbt. The Tamron usually stays put or just moves a bit at times. The Tamron seems to be surer of its focusing than the sigma. I am pleased with this lens. It's not as punchy or obvious image wise as the 28-75 f2.8 Di, but it is up there with it. It is a poor man's L lens. Too bad it does have ring USM. But I have saved maybe U$200-700 had I gotten a 17-40L or 16-35L. And I can use this lens with normal 35mm lens. The Di designation assures this. The newer Di-2 w/c will come out will be specific for APS sensors, so be mindful of this difference. Finally, for those reporting flare on this lens, I suggest you replace your copy. Mine does not flare and I subjected it to some really nasty lights going into the lens directly. All in all, a nice lens. It is a poor man's 17-35/40 f2.8-4 "L" equivalent and it's not as expensive. This is especially for me who basically like the long end of the zooms than the wide. I needed this lens for weddings where group pictures tend to require the wide end, so with photographing the bride in small rooms.

f2.8 at wide end Sharp wide open at all focal lengths. Better stopped down by at least 1 or 2 stops. Sharp even at corners. Less price than the 17-40L f4.0

35mm not 40mm 77mm filter size will make me buy a 77mm polarizer :-( tend to picky with 77mm UV filter. no ring USM or HSM lens hood is basically usefless for DSLRs. some slight CA at 17mm

Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 canon ef 16-35 f2.8L

none required.

I purchased this lens for my Nikon D70 because I read the good reviews and was happy with my other Tamron lens, namely the 28-75mm f/2.8. This 17-35mm lens is relatively small for a lens this wide. It accepts 77mm filters. The filter thread is the most outward extended part. The front element of the lens is not big, but protruding forward with a significant curvature. My guess is that because of the front element so curving out, it attributes for the main problem this lens has (read below). Hats off to Tamron though for still correcting the image so that the photos shot with it are more than acceptable, good but not great. The lens balances well on Nikon D70. This is a decent lens although a $500 price tag in my opinion is a little steep. I use it mostly to shoot outdoors in manual focus using the separately printed depth-of-field scale. Most of my pictures are shot between f/11 and f/16. I also generally shoot in the RAW format instead of JPEG for the best detail and color fidelity. So here's how my sample performs. On the APS-sized sensor of the Nikon D70 it produces good, but not excellent photographs. They are sharp but not as sharp as some of the photos I shot with my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 LD, or briefly with the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8d ED AF-S that I borrowed. At the corners of my DSLR cropped photo, at 17mm, I notice very slight purple chromatic abberation with this Tamron wide zoom. It is more than acceptable though and visible only when the photo is blown up on the computer. Essentially when photographing leaves on a tree against a sky, the purple fringing is almost invisible. It becomes apparent if the photo is enlarged down to the level where pixels are visible on the screen. The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 LD for instance does not suffer from this. I've done professional 8x10 inch prints from this Tamron 17-35mm lens and the purple fringing was not visible there. I suspect doing something like 16x20 inch print would allow the viewer to notice it. Cheaper lenses or consumer snapshot cameras usually suffer from much more chromatic abberation as in many cases one does not need to enlarge the photo to see it. When shooting with the sun in the frame, this lens flares horribly. Not only flare and ghosting is large, but also I get that bright spot in the middle of the flare coming from the sun. To summarize, in my opinion this lens is more in a $400 dollar range rather than $500 due to the chromatic abberation problem and poor performance into the sun. I somewhat regret that I chose this lens as opposed to the Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5d ED. The build is good for the price. The front element moves about 1.5cm forward and back when zooming. Contrast is relatively good, but I've seen better from Nikon ED glass.

Build quality for a lens in this price-range. In the end produces quality prints.

Slight chromatic abberation in the edges even on a cropped field of view of a DSLR, flare when shooting into the sun.

Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8d ED AF-S Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 LD Other consumer Nikkors but in the telephoto range.

Didn't need any, but just in case a Tamron authorized service is about 10 miles from where I live.

I bought the tamron 17-35 2 months agofor my canon 10d. I didnt think that it was sharp enough so I went today and bought the canon 17-40 4.0 thinking it would solve all my problems. The truth is these lenses are so close that Im bringing the canon back to B and H tomorrow and getting my 700 hundred dollars back. The truth is that at 17mm and 20mm these lenses are almost identical at 40mm the canon wins but thats about it.The canon was also slightly sharper at the edges. my test were done by shooting the same object at the same focal length and observing them in Photoshop at 100% , all were shot at f8. So if your like me and shooting people with flash at f8 alot, get the tamron.

sharp, cheap, good contrast

a little soft at 35 and the edges

canon 17-40mm

I have used the new Tamron 17-35 on my Canon 10D DSLR only. It is simply one of the best lenses I have ever used and produces crisp contrasty and extremely sharp images at all aperatures and lengths - although like most lenses it gets even better when closed down down one or more stops. When my 10D is set up to give in camera sharpening (+1 or +2) the images are virtually perfect and can be used without any manipulation if need be. Just perhaps a tweek in levels is usually enough. I have already sold some shots from this lens. The distortion levels are very low on a DSLR due to the crop factor and flare (reported by others) has never caused any problem. All ultra wide zooms are prone to flare and this one is better than most - much less flare than my previous Tokina 19-35 (itself a sharp optic). I have not shot sunsets or sunrises yet - so I cannot coment on possible flare problems in these situations - but I suspect that it won't be bad! Tamron should really supply a special hood for DSLR use as the one supplied is only useful with film cameras with their wider aspect. The lens is lighter and smaller than the new equivalant Sigma optic and a bit less rugged looking. Build qality is good with very firm barrel extension - no wobbles here!- far better than the new Tamron 28-75! Pity it is not a constant f2.8 though! I have taken hundreds of available light shots both indoor and outdoor (many in low light)and am continually amazed at the resolution. The f2.8 aperature (at 17 mm only)is extremely useful and often allows for ASA settings of 100 or 200. In the right hands this lens will give professional saleable results. Very impressive tool!

Sharp at ALL aperatures and awesome above f4 Light and compact good build - looks good too. f2.8 at 17mm Much cheaper than Canon's 17-40

Focus ring spins on auto focus not constant f2.8 Hood not very effective for DSLR

Tokina 19-35 Canon 17-40

OK! In England/Ireland Tamron guarantee only lasts 1 year(in USA it is 6 years)