Anyone else discover theTamron 17-35mm 2.8-4.0

[d_weissman]

I often read about the 17-40L, 12-24mm, etal.... I want to relay to

you that the Tamron Di 17-35mm is a great lens at hundreds of dollars

less. I use it on a 10D and printed to 13x19. Impressive results.

I was a "lens snob" using Canon only up to now. I have developed an

open mind to the posssiblities for other brands of lenses. I have

probably missed out on some great lenses because of my snobbery.

Has anyone else had this epithany?

[derrick_morin___fallon__ne]

I have a similar attitude about my Sigma 17-35 2.8-4.0 EX. I've been using it for over five years: Elan 7E, EOS 3, then 10D. I'm still a Canon snob - wish I had all L glass, but I do love this lens.

[yakim_peled1]

No one ever said that only Canon makes good lenses and others can not. For example, many claim that the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM is optically as good as the Canon 70-200/2.8 USM L. However, when you start thinking about other merits like never have to worry about compatibility problems, like IS lenses, like much better re-sale value etc., things look more complex.

 

However, When we talk about top of the line L or primes in extreme conditions (like sharpness of the corners of large enlargements from wide open shots, like flare handling, like minimal distortion), it's very hard to find well conducted tests which prove that third party lenses equal the Canon ones. In fact, most prove the opposite.

 

The common wisdom is that when you buy a third party lens you get 90% of the performance for 50% of the price. Worth it ? To many, yes. Those who seek 100% performance at all times usually pay more and buy Canon.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

 

P.S. Have you compared the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 to the Canon 17-40/4 ? If so, how do they compare ?

[wilfred_m_rand]

This lens is reviewed in the March 2004 Popular Photography and it confirms my own research and pre-purchase testing: it is equal to or better than the 17-40L. The Pop Photo tests are subjective, but so are mine. I took pictures with both on a test range and compared the 8x10 and 11x14 prints following identical Photoshop actions. This is the only test that matters.

 

This lens is on my camera 80% of the time. See my galleries here for samples. http://www.pbase.com/wilfredmrand.com<div></div>

[asimh]

has anyone used this lens on FF digital or an analog camera? i'd be curious to see those impressions.

[casey mcallister]

Big bucks does not always mean big results, and vice versa. I own the dRebel and bought the 'cheap' kit lense. I was one of the first buyers of this camera and as a result may have gotten lucky and rec'd a superalive item, but I must say that this lense rocks. I compared my 'version' to a 50mm f 1.8 prime and hardly noticed any difference at f5.6, f11, and f22. Obviously it's not as fast, but otherwise for a zoom, this lense ROCKS in terms of price to performance. At comparable focal lenghts my 'version' SLAMS the 28-135 IS!

[PuppyDigs]

"Has anyone else had this epithany [epiphany?]?"

 

I used to live fast and loose and flaunted my Sigma glass. I owned 6 different optics from a 24 2.8 prime to the 400 4.5 APO. They all had metal barrels and excellent optics. Similar Canon glass often seemed cheaply made, lacking hoods and using plastic barrels. I used the Sigmas with an A2 and 1N for many years. Then I bought an EOS 3 in 2000 and an Elan 7E in 2001 and none of them worked! Unfortunately, only one was new enough to be rechipped. The rest I sold for cheap or gave away. So, now I only have Canon glass. I hear Tamron doesn't need rechipping...