The Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 -- How I'm Saving Money and 100% Satisfied

[angry hampster]

Two years ago I bought my 5D, and needed an ultrawide lens for my trip to Tasmania. I bought a Canon 17-40L and loved every minute of use I had with it.

Last year I started shooting weddings and found myself needing a standard zoom more, so I sold the 17-40 and bought a 24-70. Now, I've found myself needing a UWA again. Having a car payment and student loans, I'm trying to stick to my tight budget. I picked up a Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 from the POTN forums for $275.

I am *blown away* by how good this lens is. It's my first Tamron, and I'm very impressed with the image quality. Shot this a couple weeks ago:

That's with very minimal sharpening and colors pretty much straight from the cam. Here's one from a recent engagement shoot:

I *highly* recommend this lens for those looking to go wide (on APS-C) or ultrawide (on 35mm) on a budget. The build quality isn't great. It doesn't have full-time manual focus. If you can get past these two things, this is really a great lens.

 

[996GT2]

Could you post some 100% crops?

I agree though, Tamron makes some very sharp lenses. Both copies of the 17-50mm f/2.8 XR I've owned were extremely sharp, even at wide-open aperture. The general consensus on the POTN forums is that the Tamron 17-50 is on the same level as the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 in terms of sharpness, despite the Canon costing 3x more.

Sigma, on the other hand...I can't quite say the same for. I've owned 3 or 4 Sigma lenses, and all of them had some combination of AF errors/sharpness issues.

 

[adairusmc]

I have the 28-75 f/2.8 Tamron, and it is a great lens. I already have the 17-40L, but I got the Tamron as part of a trade for my old 50D body I sold, and I could not be happier. If I didn't already have the 17-40L I would have probably got this lens just based on how good that 28-75 is.

 

[angry hampster]

Could you post some 100% crops?

I agree though, Tamron makes some very sharp lenses. Both copies of the 17-50mm f/2.8 XR I've owned were extremely sharp, even at wide-open aperture. The general consensus on the POTN forums is that the Tamron 17-50 is on the same level as the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 in terms of sharpness, despite the Canon costing 3x more.

Sigma, on the other hand...I can't quite say the same for. I've owned 3 or 4 Sigma lenses, and all of them had some combination of AF errors/sharpness issues.

Full shot:

100% crop (look at me yay!)

That's 17mm @ f/5.6. Again, just a conversion from RAW and slight sharpening in ACR. If that ain't sharp, nothin is.

 

[jpeyton]

Center sharpness isn't typically an issue with wide-angle lenses, even inexpensive ones.

The reason people pay $$$ for professional wide-angle lenses is for corner sharpness. For the examples you've shown (car/portrait), corner sharpness isn't necessary and thus the Tamron is a great value. But for landscape shooter, even much pricier wide-angle lenses don't cut it.

I picked up a Sigma 15-30mm for my D700 for less than the price of a cheap kit lens, and it works great for my purposes. Center sharpness is good at all apertures; corner sharpness is okay at f/8-f/11.

 

[angry hampster]

This is very true. However, I've always liked the corner sharpness of the Canon 17-40 over the 16-35, which is more than double the price. The 16-35 flares quite a bit more as well.

 

[Anubis]

I have this lens as well it preforms great on an APS-C camera, on FF there is noticable light falloff in the corners as well as some distortion. but I agree for what it costs its a steal.

 

[Maximus96]

but at 5.6 even kit lenses are sharp in the center

 

[angry hampster]

but at 5.6 even kit lenses are sharp in the center

You're crazy. That is absolutely sharp.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

You're crazy. That is absolutely sharp.

Maximus is absolutely correct, though. A modern 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens is very sharp in the center @ 18mm f/5.6-8. Check out the analysis at a site like photozone.de.

Of course (and as I'm sure you know very well) other optical characteristics like distortion, contrast, vignetting, etc. are still going to be better in a more "premium" lens.

PS - given a higher resolution sensor, the kit lens may start to fall down in comparison.

 

[Dubb]

Center sharpness isn't typically an issue with wide-angle lenses, even inexpensive ones.

The reason people pay $$$ for professional wide-angle lenses is for corner sharpness. For the examples you've shown (car/portrait), corner sharpness isn't necessary and thus the Tamron is a great value. But for landscape shooter, even much pricier wide-angle lenses don't cut it.

I picked up a Sigma 15-30mm for my D700 for less than the price of a cheap kit lens, and it works great for my purposes. Center sharpness is good at all apertures; corner sharpness is okay at f/8-f/11.

Bingo. I'm primarily interested in buildings and urban environments, and that's exactly why I chose nikon over canon - for the 14-24.