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

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

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.

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

sharp, especially stopped down to F5.6 and below, not heavy, vignetting and distortions reasonably contolled

Ghosting !!!

The biggest problem with this lens is its extremely bad ghost performance. If you put the sun (or a bright source of light)in your picture you get extremely nasty orange rings in your picture. This happens from 17-24 mm and it even doesn't stop if you stop down to F16 or F22. I take a lot of pictures of landscapes and at 17mm I often can't avoid to have the sun in the image, so the lens is useless for me and I will return it to the dealer to get back my money. Apart from this disappointment the lens is ok, sharpness and contrast are a bit soft wide open but the lens gets quite sharp at F5.6 and below. As I rarely do architecture shots I don't bother too much about distortions, but even at 17mm distortions are no problem for landscape shots. Vignetting is not too bad wide open, it seems to be reasonably controlled. As the Tamron is by far cheaper than the Nikkor AF-S 17-35, I think the built quality is ok, but you might object the heavy use of plastics for the lens barrel and especially the filter thread.

Customer Service

?

Similar Products Used:

Nikon AF-D 18mm, Nikon AiS 18mm, Tokina SL 17mm, Tamron SP 24-135mm