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

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

DESCRIPTION

Digitally Integrated Design - designed to meet the performance characteristics of digital SLR cameras

  • 28-55mm coverage mounted on an APS-size digital SLR camera
  • Min focus: 0.3m (11.8")
  • Flower shaped hood included
  • Available for Canon, Minolta, Nikon-D, Pentax

  • USER REVIEWS

    Showing 1-10 of 11  
    [Feb 27, 2020]
    jeffbozo


    Strength:

    I was looking for a budget lens to use behind a goal net. I’m a professional photographer that has never really needed anything wider than 24mm. I wanted something that could do the job but wasn’t going to break the bank or get mad about if it got hit by a ball. I needed a lens that was wide, fast and sharp for full frame. And after a lot of research I arrived at this beauty. It’s not L series build, but still well built. It’s not 2.8 all the way through, only from 17-20mm. But then it’s not priced like and L! Understand what your buying and if it meets your needs as it does mine. You’ll save a bunch of money and won’t be disappointed.

    Purchased:
    Used  
    OVERALL
    RATING
    4
    [Nov 08, 2005]
    jesusdelallata
    Expert

    Strength:

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

    Weakness:

    Slow to focus in low light

    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.

    Customer Service

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

    Similar Products Used:

    Canon 17-40mm L

    OVERALL
    RATING
    5
    VALUE
    RATING
    5
    [Oct 25, 2004]
    caterpillar
    Professional

    Strength:

    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

    Weakness:

    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

    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.

    Customer Service

    none required.

    Similar Products Used:

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

    OVERALL
    RATING
    4
    VALUE
    RATING
    5
    [Oct 15, 2004]
    instamatic
    Intermediate

    Strength:

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

    Weakness:

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

    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.

    Customer Service

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

    Similar Products Used:

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

    OVERALL
    RATING
    4
    VALUE
    RATING
    3
    [Jul 15, 2004]
    manrat17
    Expert

    Strength:

    sharp, cheap, good contrast

    Weakness:

    a little soft at 35 and the edges

    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.

    Similar Products Used:

    canon 17-40mm

    OVERALL
    RATING
    4
    VALUE
    RATING
    3
    [May 20, 2004]
    russmerne
    Expert

    Strength:

    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

    Weakness:

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

    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!

    Customer Service

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

    Similar Products Used:

    Tokina 19-35 Canon 17-40

    OVERALL
    RATING
    5
    VALUE
    RATING
    5
    [Apr 24, 2004]
    Peter_H
    Expert

    Strength:

    Sharpness, zoom range

    Weakness:

    Focus speed (perhaps, not an issue for me) with Nikon AF-D mount on an F80.

    An excellent lens - low flare, high overall sharpness, no discernible vignetting (I use a slimline UV0 filter on the front). Colour and contrast are excellent. Distortion at both ends is minimal (you REALLY have to look for it). Price/performance ratio is outstanding (by local standards). Build and "feel" of lens are both excellent. I know that some users have reported severe flare with this model - send yours back and get another sample: it's worth it if you can get one like mine!

    Customer Service

    One year warranty only in UK. No experience with customer service.

    Similar Products Used:

    None - just Nikkor zooms

    OVERALL
    RATING
    5
    VALUE
    RATING
    5
    [Apr 11, 2004]
    ymer
    Expert

    Strength:

    Sharpness and contrast stopped down to F5,6 and lower, lightweight and handy

    Weakness:

    some vignetting at 17mm, no HSM for AF, sample variations, Tamron qualtity control is bad.

    Update: I borrowed a second sample of this lens at a local shop and did some intensive testing. The flare/reflections problems I described in January didn't occur with the second lens. There still is some ghosting and flare in backlight situations but it's not stronger than with other superwideangle zooms (may be the Canon L 17-40 is better). So my first sample was defective. I found postings of two more users on nikonians.org and dpreview.com who also complained about bad quality control with this lens and had problems with bad samples (vignetting, sharpness). So I beg you to take into consideration that this might happen to you as well. The advice in one of the other postings here to use a multicoated filter in backlight situations is nonsense, an additional optical surface never can improve ghosting/flare issues. That's optically impossible. In addition to my earlier post I'd like to say that vigentting at 17mm is stronger than I first realized, you have to stop down to F8 before it's gone. HSM (or AF-S/ USM) would be a niece feature too, the new Sigma EX HSM DG 17-35 has it, but the Sigma has no aperture ring with Nikon-mount and you can't use it with Nikon MF-cameras.

    Customer Service

    ?

    Similar Products Used:

    Tamron SP 24-35, Nikon AF-D 18, Tokina SL 17

    OVERALL
    RATING
    4
    VALUE
    RATING
    4
    [Mar 03, 2004]
    dorkus
    Intermediate

    Strength:

    excellent sharpness, resolution, contrast and color; good wide-open (17mm f/2.8) performance; good build quality and ergonomics; reasonable price

    Weakness:

    a little soft in the corners, slightly more distortion, worse flare, and slower AF than Canon 17-40L

    I thought I would chime in since there are only two reviews so far. I searched long and hard for a good, reasonably-priced wideangle for my Canon 10D DSLR. i looked at the zooms and primes from Canon, Sigma, and Tokina. One of the first lenses i tried was the Sigma 17-35mm, before the newer "DG" version - it was extremely mediocre and i returned it. I tried a Sigma 20mm f/1.8 prime, the first sample was terrible, the second was pretty good but i wasn't crazy about it and returned it as well. I tested a Canon 17-40L and it was a superb lens, but I was hesitant to spend $700. I used my boss's 16-35L and it's not all that great at that great at the wide end (though it's very good at 35mm), and it costs a fortune anyway. Then the Tamron came out. for the first couple months it was impossible to find one in stock anywhere, but upon visiting Adorama they happened to have one in stock so i picked it up. The initial test shots in the store seemed promising, and upon closer inspection at home i was really impressed - at 17mm wide open (f/2.8) the Tamron had excellent resolution, sharpness, and contrast. I did notice slightly more distortion than the 17-40L but it's all but unnoticable in most photos. In the center 50% of the frame on a 1.6x crop DSLR, this lens is actually a bit sharper at f/2.8 than the Canon 17-40L at f/4! Aperture for aperture, they are very comparable, the Tamron tending to be slightly sharper. Where the Canon L wins is in consistency from edge to edge - the corners are very nearly as sharp as the center, the Tamron is a bit mushy. I'd guess if you averaged out sharpness across the entire frame, they are pretty equal though - Tamron wins in center, Canon in corners. In real-world shooting i almost never notice the corner softness of the Tamron so to me it's every bit as good as the L. Another shocker was contrast and color response. I compared the Tamron @ 35mm vs. my very expensive Canon 35/1.4L prime, and it was nearly identical. Granted they were stopped down to f/8 for the purposes of the test shot, but i was impressed with the neutrality and fidelity of the Tamron's color vs. my vaunted L prime... everthing from vivid contrasts to subtle shadings was nicely preserved, and i saw no color cast as with Sigmas (orangish) and other Tamrons (yellowish). Weakness: as mentioned below, AF is rather noisy and not as fast/accurate as the USM on the Canon L's. It's quite adequate for most shooting, but for any fast action you may need the Canon's USM speed as well as the full-time manual control. Flare control (ghosting) is definitely better on the Canon L's, but my assessment falls somewhere in between the other two reviews - ghosting can be an issue in some situations with strong direct sunlight at certain angles, but so far i haven't had a problem. I don't know if a UV filter would help, maybe on film but not on a digital camera - i personally prefer not to use one on this lens as it tends to degrade image quality on wideangles. Build quality doesn't measure up to Canon L, but it's pretty good and i actually prefer the focus and zoom rings on the Tamron - the Canon 17-40L i tried had a rather loose and mushy zoom ring that moved around easily, the Tamron's has just the right amount of resistance and stays put. The focus ring is too loose for my tastes but the distance markings are much better than on the Canons; since i use MF often with wideangles this comes in handy. i also like that the Tamron is a little lighter and skinnier than the Canon. All in all i think this is a really excellent lens for the money, and a good alternative to the Canon 17-40L. if you don't mind the slower AF and flare issue, and aren't doing shooting which requires the absolute best edge-to-edge sharpness and least distortion (e.g. architecture), this lens will give you pictures every bit as good as the L, along with a full stop faster aperture at the wide end to boot.

    Similar Products Used:

    Canon 17-40L, Canon 16-35L, Sigma 17-35, Sigma 20/1.8

    OVERALL
    RATING
    5
    VALUE
    RATING
    5
    [Feb 11, 2004]
    Greg300
    Intermediate

    Strength:

    Build quality. Overall optical quality. Price compared to Canon and Nikon equivalents. Little distortion, ALMOST NO GHOSTING, and no vignetting noticed. Outperforms the only alternative in the price range, the Sigma 17-35.

    Weakness:

    Somewhat loud focusing motor. No manual focus while in auto-focus mode. Requires large and relatively expensive filter (though all wide-angles do).

    I feel the need to provide a balanced review of this lens, as the last one (about the ghosting) is innaccurate. I think the ghosting issue needs to be addressed. First of all, you should have a UV filter on your lens, along with the supplied lens hood. Perhaps a lack of UV filter explains your troubles. Second, I have used this lens extensively for 2 months, often shooting into STRONG light sources, and have experienced VIRTUALLY NO ghosting, which was surprising. I have done long exposures facing into car headlights, shots facing into the sun and numerous streetlights (at f/2.8). I repeat, I've gotten almost no ghosting. I have gotten flare artifacts (star-shaped points of light at low f-stops like f/22) from streetlights and such, but any lens will do this, even a hyper-expensive Canon L lens. Now, on to the rest. Distortion is very well controlled, as is vignetting. I have taken shots on this alongside the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 (later examined on film), and the Tamron wins hands down in both categories. I've also been told by knowledgable people in a camera shop I frequent (and whom I trust), that the performance in these categories is comperable to the Canon L-series 16-35 and 17-40. That is a rather tall order, especially from a lens that's half or less of the price. I should be clear that there is some distortion with the lens (every wide angle has this), but it is well controlled. And truth be told, I've noticed absolutely no vignetting. None. The lens itself is quite solid and well built (though I don't advise dropping it), and requires a large UV filter (72 or 77, costing about $30 dollars), which should be bought alongside the lens. One thing to be careful of is the focus ring, which can't be focused manually while the camera is in auto-focus mode. There is a switch that allows manual focusing, which is smooth and well dampened. It should also be noted that auto-focus is rather noisy compared to other lenses, so if you require absolute silence, this is not the lens for you. In this category alone, the Sigma beats the Tamron, as the Sigma is equipped with the very quiet HSM motor. Coupled with my Rebel Ti, the lens works perfectly, with quick and accurate autofocusing, and a bright viewfinder image. The lens is somewhat heavy though (not enough to make you tired), and it does unbalance the lighter cameras in the Rebel series. I found that the balance is almost perfect with the battery pack on my camera, but this is by no means necessary to fully enjoy the benefits of this lens. So what are your alternatives? You could spend 2X more on Canons and Nikons in the same focal range, but they apparently offer no significant benefit (the Canon 16-35 goes down one extra mm and offers constant aperture). I should stress that I've never used any of these, but people who have used Canon's three equivalents (16-35 f/2.8, 17-40 f/4, old 17-35 f/2.8) have not noticed a difference when they spent time with this lens. The Sigma is generally sold for a bit less (sometimes they are at the same price, shop around), and if this lens is $50-$100 just out of your range, you could use the Sigma and be happy with it, but the Tamron is noticably better in almost all respects. There are also much cheaper 19-35s from Tokina and Tamron, so if you want a wideangle on a $200 budget, go for those. Finally, the lens comes with a 6-year warranty. I realize this was longwinded...but I always felt when looking at other's reviews that I preferred more to less.

    Customer Service

    Fine at B&H

    Similar Products Used:

    Sigma 17-35 Sigma 15-30

    OVERALL
    RATING
    5
    VALUE
    RATING
    5
    Showing 1-10 of 11  

    (C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.

    photographyreview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

    Other Web Sites in the ConsumerReview Network:

    mtbr.com | roadbikereview.com | carreview.com | photographyreview.com | audioreview.com