KM 17-35 f/2.8-4 vs Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

[emaxxman]

I've search extensively on the net for reviews of both of these lenses. There

are alot of reviews for the Tamron 17-50 and 17-35. All for the most part

compare it against the Canon or Nikon ~equivalents.

 

Does anyone have link for a review of the KM 17-35 and/or a comparison. The

only 17-35 review I can find is for the G version by Michael Hohner. As much

as I would love that lens, it's too expensive and not easily found anymore.

[michael_hohner]

The Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 is (almost) identical with the Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 (just cosmetic changes). You won't find a difference in performance between the two, and also not between the various mount versions of the Tamron lens. So if you find a review for the Tamron in Canon/Nikon mount, it will be valid for the Minolta mount Tamron or the Minolta version.

[dagoimaging]

Go here:

 

http://dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

 

You can find just about any lens you want...

[dave_redmann]

I looked into this issue some time back, when looking for a lens to replace the Minolta 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens from my Maxxum 5D.

 

(1) On most and maybe all major optical criteria (sharpness, geometric distortion, speed/maximum apeture, focal lenght range, chromatic aberation), the constant f/2.8 "normal zooms" all beat the Tamron/Minolta 17-35mm f/2.8-4. I ended up buying the original Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX, and have not regretted the decision. The current version is the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX Macro, which seems a bit better in some ways and a bit worse in others. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is supposed to be a very nice lens too. There is also a Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8, but is it available yet in any mount, much less Maxxum/Alpha?

 

(2) The Minolta and Tamron versions of the 17-35mm f/2.8-4 apparently are not identical. First, their coatings are different; however, I suspect that the overall effect is very minor. Second, I think their zoom and/or focus rings turn in opposite directions.

[michael_hohner]

Dave, your pt. 2, that's what I meant with "cosmetic changes".

[emaxxman]

Thanks everyone for your input. I have a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and am pretty happy with it. It needs to be stopped down but so does every non-pro level lens.

 

The Sigma 18-50 looks interesting. It is a 72mm filter which would let me use some filters I already have. The 24-70 has a ridiculous 82mm filter. I also considered the 17-50 but didn't like the fact that it was only useable on non-full frame cameras. I still have a film 7 and occasionally use it. It's a minor point regardless.

 

I'm torn between getting a KM lens vs a Sigma/Tamron. The S/T have a warranty of 4-6 years. The KM only has a 1 year warranty of which I would have to go to Sony for (ugh.) I have 3 Minolta brand lenses and prefer the ergonomics to my 2 Sigma's.

 

I will be heading into NYC this week so I'll see if I can check them out in person at B&H Photo.

[dave_redmann]

<I>I also considered the 17-50 but didn't like the fact that it was only useable on non-full frame cameras.</I><P>

 

Just be warned that both of the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8's are also not usable on full-frame cameras.

[brettdeacon]

Not sure if this helps you Thang, but I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens and am extremely impressed with its performance. I've never tried the Minolta 17-35 but the Tamron is substantially better than both the Alpha kit lens and the Sigma 20-40 2.8. If I can provide you with any more information, such as a 100% crop of images taken with this lens, let me know.

[mattluther]

Hi Hoang,

I have used both of those lenses semiprofessionally. They are both optically very good, the

Tamron mechanically somewhat more convincing. The main difference is what you see

from the numbers: The longer focal span of the Tamron, the greater aperture.

What you don't notice as easily is that the 17-35 is noticeably bulkier, especially when you

have the hood on, and you usually do. This is because the 17-35 is full frame whilst the

17-50 is for an APS-C sensor. What you think of this feature depends on which rumors

about coming Sony bodies you want to believe, and whether you have any use for the lens

in a film camera.

 

Mathias L

[emaxxman]

Well, I picked up the KM 17-35 lens. I sold a few old items and put the credit towards the KM lens. The Tamron 17-50 nice but at almost $100 bucks more, I had to pass due to budget constraints. I was leaning towards the KM and the price made the choice easier.

 

The KM lens feels nice, solid, and well built. The focusing and zoom rings feel smooth. I'm sure it will hold up just fine as I don't really abuse my equipment. I have a 1985 edition 50mm f1.7 lens and that still works great.

 

I haven't had a chance to really review and take formal test shots yet. However, I'm very impressed with the picture quality, i.e. sharpness so far. Hopefully, I'll get to take some formal shots soon.

 

Thanks everyone for your help.

[paul_d7]

Thang, I have the Km 17-35, and here's what I've found: the picture quality has a certain "sweetness" to it that is never disappointing. There are limitations with this lens... the flare is horrible, so forget shots with bright direct sun. The image quality wide open isn't startling, but at f/11-f/16 it is quite commendable. Also, with a 7D it performs much better... using it full frame shows the icky distortion at the edges. SO, take beautiful scenics at f/16 without bright direct sun, and you'll be happy. Here's one shot at 1/15th/sec at f/13:

 

http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/big.asp?photoID=3847695&catID=&style=&rowNumber=5&memberID=153246

 

Enjoy!