|
I've tried this lens for over 2 weeks now, it hasn't left my camera since I got it. I thought the lens not having image stabilizer or as Tamron calls it, vibration compensation, would be a problem but it turns out is not an issue like I thought it would be. The image quality is great with this lens and I've kept it at 2.8 most of the time. It's a great walk-around-lens, it performs well in most situations and takes amazing portrait shots, so far I have been very happy with it, very sharp and excellent color reproduction. You'll enjoy this lens even with it's minor slow focus problem sometimes, I still give it 5 stars because it's not enough to be an issue. As always ordering from Amazon was a great experience with timely shipping and reasonable prices.Good luck on your decision.
my pro use is 141, for headshots with fill flash and some perfecting oriented raw/psd file photoshop.tho that shot did not need much, just perfecting for the client. love the 2.8 across the range. have shot with this for 4 years now, bought at $395 and am happy to see amazon offering a great price after 3 years of inflation, one year of stagnancy.it's really the one lens (aside from the canon 2.8 17-55mm image stab, which is twice+ much as this, but complements it) that i can say will bring no regrets. did need a little photoshop to really balance the tones/light out, but it delivers such good material to work with in extreme light conditions. i say, just don't play handball with it. no. point is, across the board the lens can hang well.
but it's a nice quality, and likely 90% as good as you'll get with a zoom.and also easily fixed in photoshop or other simple pic adjusting software, and one will always be sharpening a bit anyway, so not at all a negative.no reason not to get this lens. spelled n-o-n-e.have 3 shots that show a range of work in the image section (clickable at top of page), no.s 139, 140, 141. only thing i might say is that the sharpness needs a little photoshop pump uP.if you look at most of the added images in the gallery, they seem to have a touch of, if not softness, then a slight lack of punched right on sharpness. 139 has some tonal photoshop and other basic work in raw/psd, but casual, about 30mins worth, and is a casual very low light indoor shot of kitty sitting by a very bright window.really shows this camera taking on paradoxical conditions. 140 has only some photoshop to bring out colors in sky/sea, some sharpening, but shows this lens in another situation, a scenic ocean pic. all, or virtually all, reviews on this lens had it beating the canon 'L' version of it for mucho mucho more $.the only drawback being this has a plastic barrel. probably the best lens out there in this zoom range, and a no-brainer price.
Much.So, 1/3 the cost, and half the weight. I have a Canon XSi/450D, and about 1.5 years of DSLR experience.I thought that the new kit I got was so difficult to learn, but it turns out that my kit lens was just not so good. The sharpness(especially on a crop sensor) is outstanding from f/4 on up. I have confirmed that in a store on my body. The text (especially away from center) was MUCH sharper with the Tamron than the Canon L. Good protection. I leave it on 99% of the time.
This Tamron was a great choice for an all-around lens. Usually wide enough, and can zoom in for nice bokeh in the background of portraits. So you know where this review is comong from, I am an amateur. I sold my "nifty fifty" after getting this lens, becasue it is more flexible, and I never liked the shots I got between 1.8 and 2.8 anyway. Too soft.In professional reviews, this lens is sharper than the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L. I compared their L to the Tamron with a magazine full of text. I also considered the Sigma 24-70 f2.8, but the weight, filter size and flare resistance were all better with the Tamron.This lens works great. Otherwise, the Tamron is the way to go.
The fact that a petal hood is included makes a nice plus, and the lens cap is the type you squeeze together from the front, so it's easy to get on/off with the hood in place. The canon lens is weather sealed, and moslty a metal chassis. At f2.8, it's a touch soft for me, but still very usable up to 8X10" prints. Much sharper wide open than the "venerated" Canon 50mm 1.8 II, even at f/2.8. If those two items are important to you, then get the Canon. My only caveat is that the zoom movement is opposite to the canon lenses, which is a little disconcerting when you switch, but not a big deal.
If only it were as sharp on the outer points as it was in the center, It'd be perfect. This has been my go to "walk around" and "family snaps" lens, but because of the focusing problems, I would never use it in my professional work.
When I first got it I was thrilled with the bokeh, color, and quality of the images. I've had the Tamron lens for about a year now.
The solution is to focus and re-compose, and while I don't mind doing that, sometimes when you're at 2.8 and zoomed all the way in, the movement required to re-compose creates an out of focus image. But after a little time went by, I discovered that the lens is only sharp when I use the center focal point to focus.
It is both difficult to focus and soft (back focusing) if I try to use any of the outer focal points. It is a really good consumer lens, far better than a kit lens.
Sadly, I've had to replace it with the Canon 24-70mm 2.8L.
Not a good start for a lens taken from the box, I reckon. When I purchased my Sony A700, a few months ago, I got it with the rather mediocre Sony 35-70 kit lens, but as I have been always a fixed focal lenght enthusiast -I must said that for almost 40 years I have been using leicas and Leitz lenses- I also got the also disappointing Sony 28/2.8.Albeit I was immediately happy with my A700 -at work I had had the opportunity to use Canons, and now Nikons, including the latest D3 and D700, thus I can compare- my new lenses were a failure, not very sharp and giving a lot of flare. So, after reading a few reviews on the 17-35/2.8 Tamron, I ordered one from Amazon.Well, is amazing, but optically that 500-dollar lens is far better optically than my previous lenses, even at full aperture, one of my primary requirements as a journalist.Mechanically the lens had a few failures (I bought it new): the mount for the lenshood's bayonet got loose and I had to make it tighten and the diafragm had a problem from the beginning that my technician had to repair. But considering that for USD 500 I got a lens of superb optical quality that i\I can use for my professional work -some of the pictures I took with it are already around the world- I can say that I am pretty satisfied.Now I am looking forward to shop another Tamrom, perhaps the 70-200/2.8. If it works like mine, it will be fine.
|
