Tamron SP A016 17-50mm F/2.8 AF XR Di-II IF Lens For Canon
About this product
|The SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 is a lightweight, compact, fast standard zoom lens designed exclusively for digital SLR cameras, expanding the product concept of the popular SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 zoom lens. In addition, portrait shots are made beautiful with the natural out-of-focus effect characteristic provided by the fast F/2.8 aperture. Additionally, a broader photographic expression through the use of faster shutter speeds as a result of the maximum aperture offers enhanced photographic pleasure. The lens boasts one of the best close-up shooting performances in the class of fast standard zoom lenses designed exclusively for digital cameras and featuring an F/2.8 maximum aperture throughout the entire zoom range, to ensure stress-free photographic shots at all focal lengths and distances.|
|Focus Type||Auto & Manual|
|Focal Length (mm)||17-50mm|
Most relevant reviews
- leoppurrdNov 12, 2007by
A Great lens for indoor and outdoor work
PROS: PRICE, 2.8 constant aperture, build quality, warranty, sharpness,
CONS: manual focus switch is hard to operate, focus ring could be larger
I recently needed a good wide angle lens for an upcoming assignment. I was on a budget (aren't we all??) and the choices came down to this lens and the Canon 17-55mm IS f 2.8. I rented the Canon lens and purchased the Tamron (here on Ebay for under 350.00 with shipping). I figured if the Canon outperformed the Tamron substantially, I could re-sell the Tamron and buy the much more expensive Canon.
I conducted my test (I am not a professional tester, but have sold enough photographs to consider myself a good photographer) between the two lenses using both inside and outside subjects. Frankly, I was a bit amazed at the results.r>
The Canon performed well (as expected) but the IS did not seem to be as helpful as I had hoped in low light situations. It actually did a fair amount of searching on auto-focus while the Tamron did seem faster. When it finally locked on, the result was sharper with the Canon, in the beginning. I say this because after using the Tamron for awhile, I was able to steady myself enough, that the results were every bit as good as the Canon's.
As for saturation, contrast and overall color, I shoot RAW format mostly and the most important thing for me is sharpness, but in jpeg (highest settings) I did notice that the Tamron compared favorably to the Canon in all catagories.
I ended up choosing the Tamron lens over the Canon due to cost, saved enough to buy a back-up camera body!! I have not regreted this decision at all!!
Other points to consider, it is made for smaller digital sensors - however, since I doubt that I am ever going to buy a 5D or 1Ds, I think I am safe.
It does not have any type of image stabilization, so if your not able to use a tripod AND your not careful - your results will vary. (though I still believe with some practice, ANYONE can use this lens and be happy!)
CAMERA EQUIPMENT OWNED
40D - body and battery pack (with camera armor on both)
xti (400D) - body and battery pack (with camera armor on camera)
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Canon 70-200mm f4 L with IS
Sigma 170-500mmRead full review
- jac0692Oct 30, 2015Verified purchase - USEDby
Tameron 17-50 lens
Very high quality.
- jmec_photoNov 29, 2006by
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is a great alternative to Canon
PROS: Constant f/2.8 aperture, sharp images, nice build quality, compact size and light weight
CONS: Build quality compared to Nikon's tank like build quality, flimsy hood, works with DX sized sensor only
If you are looking for a fast midrange zoom, you are probably staring hard at either a Canon or Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 lens (depending on your system). I was doing the same thing but was also looking at the over $1000 price tag on the Canon or Nikon offering. So I decided to look at the Tamron and I'm glad I did. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is can be had for $420 and most of the reviews you will find will say that performance is right there with the Canon or Nikkor. My experience so far supports these reviews. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind spending the $$ for quality optics but I need to see the benefit of the extra investment. In this case, it just wasn't there enough to justify spending an extra $$. The only reason I can think of to choose the Canon or Nikkor over the Tamron is if you are rough on your equipment. The build quality of the Tamron 17-50mm is first rate but isn't like the tank like build of the Canon or Nikkor. If you need that build quality, go for the Canon or Nikkor. If you don't, you'll be happy with the Tamron 17-50mm and will have $$ in your pocket to buy some other lens.Read full review
- johndar-nfmravy...Aug 6, 2015by
Not a bad lens for the price. Better for photography though.
Not a bad lens for the price. Better for photography though, it makes too much noise while changing the aperture that's bad for video. Generally,is decent
- athensarcherFeb 26, 2008by
Can't imagine a better lens for the money
Recieved my 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron today in the mail. After testing all the functions and evaluating the color, sharpness and overall quality of the lens, I have nothing but good things to say about this lens. I should have bought one sooner, but I'm glad I've got this one now. I tried several other lens solutions for my 20D, but this is by far the best. The quality of the images is stunning overall, and at 2.8, it is easily the best performance I've seen. Very usable wide open. Only the slightest loss in sharpness, but you really have to look closely to see it. By f/3.5 it is superior. I won't hesitate to shoot this lens wide open for portraits or low light if I need to however. It is FAR better at 2.8 than the Sigma lens I returned. That Sigma wasn't usable until f/5.6. Zoom action, overall size and weight and lens hood (included) are great. I think this is the best possible lens I've seen short of an "L" series Canon, and I honestly think the image quality is better in some cases (wide open and in the corners). Corners look fantastic at all apertures. No kidding.
I've heard about certain "L-series" canon lenses giving the "3-D" affect on the images because of their sharpness. I've never seen this with the "L-series" lenses, but I do see it with this lens. Only thing I can compare it to is my old Bronica medium format images. This lens, even on my 8MP Canon 20D provides images that are so sharp, they just look "different" than other images. Even my wife asked me what the difference was after looking at just a few images from this lens. She said they looked so real. I agree.
If you're reading this, then you're interested in this lens. If you are, I suggest you just get one. It will save you a lot of time, money, and most of all, frustration.Read full review