Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical A-mount lens reviews
 ferretracer#4091 date: Sep-13-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 50mm 1.7 kit 18-70 |
| price paid: | 350 (used) |
| positive: | Build range constant 2.8 flare control (see below) sharpness |
| negative: | color is a tad off, but I understand this may be a correction in my camera's newest firmware update. |
| comment: | I love the range of this lens for family shots and for landscape shots. The lens is light and is also a great walk around lens. I did have some flare on the lens, but was shooting into the sun over the ocean. I think that flares would be hard to control under these circumstances, so I gave flare control a 5 as that was the only time I had flares in a shot. My price included shipping and 1/2 paypal fees. I do not remember what the lens only price was (sorry). |
; 14MP| N_Raged#4084 date: Sep-12-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 Minolta 50 f/1.7 (O) Minolta 24 f/2.8 (O) Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 |
| price paid: | a few favors =P |
| positive: | +Super sharp throughout zoom and aperture range +Fast f/2.8 +Best value in its class +Close focusing |
| negative: | -Red fringing are quite strong -Purple fringing at 17mm -Light & plasticky build |
| comment: | Any sane person with an APS-C (1.5x) DSLR would buy the Tamron 17-50/2.8 as their walkaround zoom. I didn't because I needed the range of the Sigma 17-70mm. This lens is one of the sharpest walkaround zooms I have ever used. Colours are nice and warm. Bokeh is alright - not the smoothest. Focusing is fast. Unfortunately this lens' shortcomings around the wide end (CA, PF, field curvature) were enough to make me look elsewhere. But don't listen to me, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 should be seriously considered by everyone. |
| jbtwin#4068 date: Sep-7-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18-50 2.8 rip Minolta 50 1.7 |
| price paid: | 419.00 usd |
| positive: | Sharp from wide open to about f22. Light weight. No color cast. |
| negative: | Some noticeable distortion at 17mm. Feels cheap in my hand. |
| comment: | I purchased this lens to replace my dead sigma. The Sigma felt better in hand but was not as sharp, the Sigma also had that weird reverse zoom thing. This lens is great esp for the price. If you are looking for fast sharp glass this is the one. |
| paulh#4064 date: Sep-7-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 50mm f1.8 35-70 f3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 650NZD (new) |
| positive: | Great price, nice and sharp, and not too big. |
| negative: | Barrel distortion at wide end, particularly at 17mm. Fortunately this is fixable in PS |
| comment: | I'd read the reviews for the varying "standard" zoom lenses, and in the end the reported quality and price were what made me decide to buy it. I'd got some other lenses from my Minolta film cameras, but didn't have a standard "APS" lens for the recently acquired 5D. The Tamron seemed to be the best option, especially for the price. So far I've been very pleased with the lens. Wide open at 50mm it is great for portraits, stopped down a little at any length and it is very sharp. Now all Tamron need to do is build a 50-150 or preferrably a 50-200 f2.8, and I'll be very happy! |
| Love#4056 date: Sep-5-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sal 50 1.4 Sal 70-200 G |
| price paid: | 600 USD (new) |
| positive: | Sharp! Speed! |
| negative: | Color Bouquet |
| comment: | Very fast, very sharp and very accurate lens! In almost any condition. I replaced my kit lens 18-70 and this lens is sooo much better! BUT I do miss a bit of the famous minolta color and bouquet.. otherwise it is excellent! |
| lattiboy#4018 date: Aug-30-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-70mm DC Minolta 50mm f/1.7 Tamron 90mm Minolta 28-135mm |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharpness Color Bokeh (though to a lesser extent) Excellent range Center is quite sharp wide-open |
| negative: | For the price range, there is nothing I could really say bad about this lens. MAYBE close focus doesn't match 17-70mm Sigma DC. I'm stretching with that one... |
| comment: | It is hard not to love this lens. It is quite compact and light for the focal length + aperture. I'm actually kind of shocked they were able to produce this lens when you compare it to the 28-70mm f/2.8's that abound. The corners are a bit soft @ f/2.8, but this can actually be a plus depending on what and how you shoot. By f/4.5 you're VERY close to prime sharpness. At f/5.6 it matches/exceeds my trusty 50mm AND the amazing MinO 28-135mm (lens which I hold all other lenses up to). I was on the fence with this one because I thought 50mm was too short and because I love my Sigma 17-70mm DC, but after a few days with this on my camera I am selling my Sigma. Additionally, the range actually forces you to get close to your subject, which is the advice of almost all great photographers. I really doubt this lens will often leave my camera, as I think it's as close to all-around (size, sharpness, color, handling) perfection as you're going to find. A bargain at twice the price. |
| MartinM#3981 date: Aug-18-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | KoMi 28-75 / 2.8 20/2.8 28/2.8 35/2.0 |
| price paid: | 650 CHF |
| positive: | - Tack sharp - Weight - Size - Aperture - Metal bayonet |
| negative: | - Focal length - Price |
| comment: | The lens is outstanding. Metal bayonet. Sharp like the other prime lenses i used to have. Better wide angle than the 28-75 but shorter in tele. I'd wish it would be 17-70/2.8 Would have been more convenient. It's weight is perfect. Not too heavy. Not a tank like the Sigma 24-70. So far i haven't noticed any barrel distortion or vignetting like some tests say. At least for me it would not be a show stopper. Size is perfect, not to long, this prevents better, the bottom shadow when using flash at short distance to object. It's not completely gone, but much better than the 28-75. Highly recommended!! |
| ninrocket#3943 date: Aug-9-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 16-80mm Zeiss 16-105mm Sony 18-50mm Sigma |
| price paid: | $400 USD (new) |
| positive: | Sharp @ f/2.8 Ultra Sharp from f/4.5-f/8 Bokeh Colors AF Speed |
| negative: | NONE |
| comment: | My ratings are relative to the current lineup of lenses in this focal range. Zoom and focus rings are nice and firm yet smooth. Auto focus is very fast and accurate on A700. Lense has a fair amount of CA at f/2.8 on the edges but is easily corrected with PP. CA is virtually gone straight out of the camera at f/4. Very slight distortion at 17mm easily corrected with PP. Distortion is lower then the Zeiss. Very slight vignetting at the far and wide ends at f/2.8 but cleans up by f/4 rather well. Sharp at f/2.8 and very sharp at f/4. Prime sharp @ f/4.5, f/5.6 and f/8. Sharpness drops slightly @ f/16 and is still very good @f/32. The lense has significant weight although the body is plastic. I still give the body a 5 rating because I don't think it's realistic to expect a metal body on a $400 dollar lense considering the high performance of the actual glass. Tamron did a great job in bringing a professional grade lense to market at this price point. Longevity will be determined only by time. My personal opinion is that this is the best wide angle zoom currently available between the four. It wipes the floor with the Zeiss and at 43% less cost. I highly recommend this lense. |
| goldencode#3896 date: Jul-29-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | tamron sp 24-135 minolta 200 f2.8 minolta 100 f2.8 minolta 400 f4.5 minolta 50 f1.7 |
| price paid: | 419 |
| positive: | sharpness focus speed price 6 year warranty |
| negative: | only to 50 on long end |
| comment: | I really agonized between bying this lens vs. the CZ 16-80 or a handful of Minolta wide angle primes. Finally, based on the great reviews of the Tamron and pulled the trigger...and VERY glad I did ! This lens is very sharp...prime sharp at f4.5 and f5.6 which really impressed me. Auto focus speeds on my a700 are super fast AND accurate. Colors are very accurate too. My only gripe is I just wished the lens had a greater reach than 50mm, but I will always choose sharpness first and foremost...Tamron knew what they were doing with this lens so I accept the 17-50 range !! This lens on an a700 is a killer combination....and for the price a real bargain for high quality sharp optics. |
| nokiamia#3889 date: Jul-26-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron SP90 f/2.8 Sony kitlens |
| price paid: | 380 USD (new) |
| positive: | Fast focusing f/2.8 when you need it Nice creamy bokeh |
| negative: | Would be perfect if range is longer e.g. 75 or 85mm Kinda heavy and physically long |
| comment: | This is a great lens. I love it to bits. It's my everyday lens. It's sharp wide open at f/2.8. And it gets sharper from there on. How good is that? It's also fast but with occasional hunting in low light. Even so, it's still miles ahead from the kitlens. For its price, I'd recommend it to anyone as opposed to the kitlens. My wish list would be if it has a longer range, e.g. 70 or 80mm. If it has a range like CZ's 16-80, this Tammy would be the perfect lens! The SP90 is probably sharper. But its nowhere as FAST as this. But then again, the SP90 is a macro lens. |
| DeX#3881 date: Jul-25-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm F1.7 Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 Sony 18-70mm kit lens |
| price paid: | 400€ new |
| positive: | Sharpness focal range size for constant F2.8 focus speed |
| negative: | some really strong purple/blue fringing towards the edges. |
| comment: | First of all, I find the focal length ideal for an APS-C sensor. It's the equivalent of a film 25,5-75mm which is exactly 25mm more wide and more tele than the "standard" 50mm lens. I've had the tamron 28-75mm on a film camera and let me tell you that the difference from 25,5 to 28 is by any means not negligible. My copy is EXTREMELY sharp, beating my 50mm F1.7 at crispiness from F2.8 to F8!!! I believe it is an excellent result and deserves a big 5 for sharpness. I've had it for a couple of months and it's done some concerts and a wedding with excellent results, a very fast lens, tack sharp at F2.8. The build quality is very good, obviously not like an old pro-metal lens but good quality plastic. The lens feels compact with no play in the rings or barrel whatsoever. The focus speed is very good, majorly due to the short run from 0.33m to infinity, but this is rather irrelevant on a non tele lens... Honestly, the only bad thing I find about this lens is that sometimes, in really harsh shadows/highlights transition zones it has the bad habit of showing VERY powerful chromatic aberrations. It's like a 10pixels fringe that can't be corrected automatically and has to be done in photoshop by recoloring the fringes. This happens ONLY towards the edges and at 17mm F2.8 and not very often. Once you zoom or close the aperture a bit, the problem disappears rapidly. Comparisons: -Minolta 50mm F1.7: as said, the tamron appears to be sharper at almost all apertures. -Sony 18-70: the 17-50mm is better than it in every aspect except range. But the difference from 17mm to 18mm is obvious to my eyes. -tamron 28-75: this one never had any issues, it is by far a perfect lens optically speaking. The two tamrons share the same bokeh, sharpness, build quality and flare control but the 28-75 never made any chromatic aberrations. It's such a pity that it's a little too long for APS-C Overall I'm very pleased to have bought this lens. I think it's THE all-around lens for APS-C sensors, delivering Canon L/Minolta G optical quality at a third of the price + a great constant aperture of 2.8 ! I strongly recommend it to anyone who's looking for an APS-C all-around lens. P.S. it even works on film with a bit of cropping... it covers like 1.8% of the surface but the distortion is very powerful. Fun to play with :-) |
| godsakes#3874 date: Jul-22-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | minolta 50mm f1.7, 24-50mm f4, beercan, cz 16-80mm |
| price paid: | L215 delivered |
| positive: | Very sharp only just beat by primes Useful range Fine indoors Great workhorse |
| negative: | Flat colours aps-c only |
| comment: | For a zoom this lens is exceptionally sharp noticably sharper than the beercan/24-50mm but just beaten by the 50mm prime & cz 16-80mm (but only noticable when you zoom in). It's basically a wonderful workhorse and for it's price i can't think of a better general purpose lenses. However compared to the minolta lenses (esp the beercan) i find the colours and brokeh less pleasent. Basically the tamron captures real life better than the minoltas (and generally sharper) but the minoltas produces a more artistic/beautiful result which i'm happy to use straight from the camera. It's indoor performance is great, the focual range is ideal while some might argue the minolta 50mm would perform better indoors, i would say only in controlled situations as the 1.5 crop means you're working with a 75mm which for me is just too long for indoors. |
| wallyb#3832 date: Jul-10-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 |
| price paid: | 360 USD NIB |
| positive: | -Very acceptable sharpness wide-open -STUPID-sharp at f/5.6 -Constant aperture -Surprisingly small and light -Well-constructed -Seven-pin electronics for TTL flash -Couples very nicely with a teleconverter -Great, very "real" colors -Pleasing bokeh -Doesn't soften up at corners or from wide to tele -Many, many more things |
| negative: | -Sharpness at f/3.5, f/4, and f/4.5 aren't much better than f/2.8 -Sometimes FF/BF (may be my camera) -A little too much flare and CA under f/4 for being a top-of-the-line 3rd party lens, but not really bad -Somewhat rare filter size of 67mm |
| comment: | As far as I'm concerned, this is *the* lens you want to get if you're even thinking about it. The shots at f/2.8 are extremely acceptable, as good as f/4-f/5.6 on many other lenses. Of course they're a bit soft, but never unpleasantly so. Once you get to f/5.6, there's no reason to go further. Easily as sharp as any prime I've ever used, even probably the Minolta 50/1.4. I compared this to the Sigma 17-70 for quite a while as I saved up the money for either one. In my opinion the only thing the Sigma has over this lens is an extra 20mm at the tele end, and to me that wasn't worth giving up a constant f/2.8. Considering the usability of that aperture on this lens, and how theoretically it comes in handy in so many ways, I definitely made the right choice. There is a noticeable amount of CA and flare that goes with being wide open, more than any give f/2.8 prime lens. However, you kind of have to look for it and shoot poor situations (lots of reflections of flash light off white surfaces, etc.) to be hampered by it. I don't think I've noticed any significant problems, even wide open, in natural sunlight with the hood on. I'm also surprised that on my copy, there's not really any difference between f/2.8, f/3.2, f/3.5, f/4, and f/4.5. Background objects become more in focus, but the focus point of your scene doesn't become considerably sharper. But at f/5 and f/5.6, it rockets up to super, super-sharp territory. Better than any 3rd-party prime, and as good as most middle-class Minolta/Sony primes. It's just a little disappointing that I always seem to be shooting at f/2.8 for speed, or f/5.6 for sharpness. The lens is very well made, about the best construction you can expect for the price. Very very solid rubber/plastic body, very comfortable and workable grip, smooth zooming, great nearly 2cm-wide focus ring, metal mount, and doesn't look fragile in any way. The only thing amiss about the build is that the hood seems VERY snug to fit on and remove. If it was made of more brittle plastic I probably would have broken it by now. This lens is always surprising me with just how good it is. The few drawbacks I mentioned are perfectly acceptable for the price and nothing major. It couples great with the Tamron MC4 1.4x TC I have, basically no sharpness lost at all. A better choice than Sigma by all means, and the best lens for this price/speed/range. |
| charlemeign#3777 date: Jul-2-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-135 f/4 Minolta 50mm 1.7 Minolta 35mm f/2 Minolta 70-210 f/4 Minolta 135 f/2.8 Sigma 20-40 f2.8 |
| price paid: | 419 usd |
| positive: | Sharp at f/2.8 Prime sharp at f/4 |
| negative: | I wish it was a bit longer... |
| comment: | Sold my Sigma 20-40 f/2.8 to get the extra reach and width. This lens is INCREDIBLY wide. The colors are excellent, and the sharpness is VERY nice. I shoot mostly portraits/people, and the only negative is I wish it were a bit longer. Of course, who doesn't want a 17-500mm f/2.8.... Also, the build surprised me. I expected it to be cheap plastic, but it has some nice solid heft. It is unfair to compare newer lenses to the old ones like the beercan and the 28-135. I bet I could crush my kit lens with this one... I'm definately happy with my purchase. |
| mylee#3745 date: Jun-23-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SONY AF 18-70 mm 3.5 - 5.6 Tamron SP AF 17-50 mm F/2,8 XR Di II Sigma AF 70 - 200 2.8 EX DG APO Sigma AF 28 - 70 mm 2.8 - 4.0 UC Minolta AF 100 mm 2.8 D macro Minolta AF 50 mm 1.4 Tamron AF 70 - 300 LD Macro |
| price paid: | 530$ new |
| positive: | good sharp f2.8, supersharp f4, lightweigt, range |
| negative: | after PP in Lightroom (distortion, vidgeting, ca) nothing |
| comment: | not good as minolta 50 1,4 at f2.8 |
| gustavjensen#3725 date: Jun-16-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 20-40mm/2.8 Tokina 28-70mm/2.8 Minolta 50mm/1.4 Sigma 105mm/2.8 and many more |
| price paid: | 380 Euro |
| positive: | Constant aperture. Good at f/2.8 AF Speed good |
| negative: | None, that's worth mentioning |
| comment: | I've seen a lot of positive reviews & comments on this lens, and I needed a constant standard zoom mostly for indoor shots, but also a good landscape lens that could supplement my Sigma 10-20mm, so I bought this. I was really amazed by the quality. At f/2.8 (all focal length) it is acceptable sharp, and can be used without any problems, as long as you don't print them too large (A4 or more). At f/4 and on it is really sharp. Build quality, bokeh, color, contrast etc. is good. I have nothing negative about this. To be a perfect lens, I would need longer focal length, better bokeh and weather sealed. But that is way you can get lenses from Sony/Canon/Nikon that are 3-5x as expensive. You get what you pay for: a very good lens that is only rivaled by the most expensive lenses on the market. |
| superx2won#3706 date: Jun-12-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 50/2.8 Macro 50/1.7 Kit len |
| price paid: | 285 USD (Used) |
| positive: | Light weight Constant aperture of 2.8 |
| negative: | Len become longer when Zoom Loud noise when AF |
| comment: | This is the standard Zoom len that i buy it to replace my kit len. Great to be use in indoor using external flash. Great sharpness @F5 onward. In low light shoting @ wide open without ext flash, the sharpness just can't fight with 50mm macro, but AF is faster. When zooming to 50mm, then len protrude out and it is quiet hard to get sharp image. You may need to hold the len firm in order to get sharp image. A Prime len is a better solution. |
| drumsavant#3705 date: Jun-11-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 420 + tax (new) |
| positive: | - VERY sharp stopped down - constant 2.8 - close focus - nice build |
| negative: | Nothing major - only 50mm reach |
| comment: | Love this lens! VERY Sharp, nice color/contrast and good flare control. I think the build quality is perfect - feels very solid even tho it has plastic parts... and the cameras built in flash can clear the lens unlike with the BIG Sigmas. It's the best budget "kit lens" replacement for the A mount IMHO! (Updated 2010) Still a great lens but I am lowering the build quality rating because the hood mount is becomming loose and rattles) |
| samwak#3699 date: Jun-9-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 28-75 f2.8 |
| price paid: | 329 (new) |
| positive: | Light Sharp |
| negative: | Tight focus ring A bit short at 50mm |
| comment: | Plenty has been said about this lens. This is a very decent lens. I bought it only because I find the KM 28-75 f2.8 not wide enough. But then when I use it I find myself constantly wishing the lens extends beyond 50mm. As a result of that, I don't use this lens very often unless I am shooting in confined spaces. If this lens was 17-80mm with aperature of F2.8, it would be the perfect lens to suit my shooting style. |
| chhh#3692 date: Jun-8-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | sony 18-70 |
| price paid: | 340 USD (mint) |
| positive: | - decently sharp starting from 2.8 - very sharp stopped down further - solid build - i like slight distortion on the short end. it adds some nice perspective to the picture and looks absolutely natural |
| negative: | - a bit too tight zooming ring - i don't like the looks of all tamrons.. :) - a little reddish color shift - in high contrast scenes at 2.8 small halos - aps-c only |
| comment: | missing |
| madecov#3669 date: Jun-4-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 Kit |
| price paid: | $470.00 (new) |
| positive: | Fast Constant aperture Good color and contrast. Flare well controlled |
| negative: | Large filter size. Slightly heavy. Could be a bit longer in the telephoto end. |
| comment: | I like this lens. It is sharper than the SONY kit lens though it doesn't have the reach. Images are sharp at all focal lengths. Sharper wide open than many lenses out there. Highly usable wide open. A very good lens for indoor use I dislike the large filter size as getting a Circular Polarizer is going to be an expensive proposition. |
| arijit#3667 date: Jun-3-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-135 f/4-4.5, 28-85 f/3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 400 USD (new) |
| positive: | sharpness, colour, weight |
| negative: | flimsy hood, slight loss of sharpness at f/2.8 |
| comment: | For the price the lens is quite awesome. There is slight loss of sharpness at f/2.8 but still quite usable. F/4 onwards it is absolutely sharp. The build is ok. If one is not knocking it around violently, it will last. The hood is flimsy and may break if one is not careful about it. The zoom lock is useful while moving around to stop any zoom creep. |
| mudslinger#3574 date: May-8-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 (kit lens) Konica Minolta 28-75/2.8 Minolta 24-105 Minolta 50/1.7 |
| price paid: | $350 (used) |
| positive: | - Very acceptable sharpness wide open at F2.8 - Sharp in center and corners when stopped down to F5.6 - Excellent color/contrast |
| negative: | - Plastic build? - Not full frame |
| comment: | This lens is very usable wide open and is just as sharp as my 50/1.7 when stopped down to F5.6 - F11. Sharpness is equal to the 28-75/2.8. Center and corner sharpness is far better than the 24-105 at comparable ranges. Shooting at 17mm there is some slight distortion. Excellent and very accurate AF with the A700. After viewing the resulting images this lens produces wide open and stopped down, I'm VERY pleased with this purchase, as I was needing a wider lens for landscape, group shots and indoor zoom lens. Highly recommended for those sticking with a cropped sensor. Not recommended for those upgrading to the Sony full frame once it is released. |
| DutchAlpha#3558 date: May-5-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL1870-kit Minolta 24-85/3,5-4,5 |
| price paid: | 349 EUR (new) |
| positive: | Sharp across the frame Very, very usable @2,8 Constant aperture Very good CA-control Looks cool on A100 :) |
| negative: | Tends to underexpose 0,7Ev at 17mm on A100 |
| comment: | After a long wait I finally got my copy of this superb lens (the made-in-Japan-version). If you're looking for an affordable -BIG- step up from Sony's kit-lens, then look no further. Compared to the kitlens, the Tamron is very sharp and, more importantly, it's sharp across the entire frame, where as the kitlens is only really sharp in the center of the frame. Furthermore, the Tamron handles CA much much better than the kitlens. The constant aperture is a dream combined with the A100, which is no star at high ISOs. Also, at 2,8, the lens is still sharp, but don't expect miracles. From F/3,5-4, it's all very nice. Color-rendition is very nice, but I tend to set my A100 to 'vivid'. The Minolta 24-85 I owned had a bit more 'red' colors where the Tamron is more 'neutral'. Build is very good. It's all plastic, that's true, but so is my A100 ;) but it's solid, high-quality plastic. The zoomring is big and provides good grip. Manual focus is not very difficult, except when the flare-hood is stored backwards on the lens. Flare-wise there's not very much to mention so far, and I think that's a good thing! Last remark about this lens: it looks cool on my A100, especially compared to the kitlens. The only downside I discovered so far is a tendency to underexpose when set to 17mm. This is easily corrected by compensation of exposure by +0,7Ev, but it's something you should remember all the time. All in all, a very very good walkaround lens with a 100% score on the bang-for-buck-list. |
| Massai#3508 date: Apr-24-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 18-70 kit Minolta 70-210 F4 Minolta 50 F1.7 |
| price paid: | about 500 USD (new) |
| positive: | F2.8 - usable Sharpness from F3.5 Range |
| negative: | sharpnes at 2.8 - still good, but could be better |
| comment: | I've used this lens during last few days, and i have to say, that this is something i needed as a replacement for kit. F2.8 - really usable. A bit soft, but still kit is no match for this. Remember that Minolta 18-70 kit is significantly worse than Sony one. From F3.5 I found that my camera (D5D) has to small sensor! I took some test photos and started zooming and zooming on a computer monitor. Instead of unsharp elements (which i expected) I saw pixels... One VERY important thing - there are big differences between samples. I tested four lenses, before I chose my. So spend some time in a shop, really bad specimen you will recognize even on a camera monitor. I used laptop to check sharpness in corners... |
| Eugene#3456 date: Apr-12-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70mm |
| price paid: | 210 GBP (new) |
| positive: | Sharp Constant F2.8 Good build quality Color |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | No complaint for the price I paid for. Sharp, decent bokeh at F2.8, made of plastic but decent quality. A good indoor lens for events and general purpose. |
| I Inspiron#3382 date: Mar-20-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70mm/f3.5-5.6 Minolta 50mm/f1.4 (original) |
| price paid: | 340 € (new) |
| positive: | colour contrast sharpness solid build constant f2.8 |
| negative: | sharpness could be better at f2.8 |
| comment: | I compared this lens to the above mentioned Sony and Minolta. At 18mm the kit-lens gives the Tamron a tough fight at f3.5 but as you stop down, the difference between the lenses gets clearer and clearer. At f8 it's like day and night: The Tamron delivers great sharpness (from center to edge), colour and contrast, where as the Sony gives flat colours and the edges are cleary unsharp. 50mm: Sony vs. Tamron: same as above Minolta vs. Tamron: The Minolta is sharper at every aperture setting as expected, but it was really amazing to see that the Minolta had no chance in terms of contrast and colour |
| Entropy#3378 date: Mar-20-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70/3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | $419 (new) |
| positive: | Nice and Sharp Constant f/2.8 26-75mm Equivalent range Light but well built |
| negative: | APS-C Only Less range than 16-80 |
| comment: | A good replacement for the kit lens if speed (f/2.8) is more important than range. The build is perhaps not on a par with G glass but the plastic seems sturdy and it is less likely to dent than the all metal bodies of more expensive lenses. It's also light, which is nice if you're carrying around the camera for a long time. Sharp sharp sharp across the range which does seem a little limited compared to some other APS-C normal zooms (which often go to 70 or 80mm) Overall a good buy. |
| lifephoto.it#3169 date: Jan-12-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Konica Minolta 17-35mm |
| price paid: | 365 € |
| positive: | Sharpness and colour |
| negative: | Distorsion, but not at 17 mm (strange na?) |
| comment: | Bought new from Japan (shipping fees included) 365 €; what do you want for more? The lens is perfect, very well build, the distorsion at 17mm is really better than the KM 17-35. colour and sharpening are very good. The real "black" point is his slowness to focus, but maybe is my 7D... (what about A700 behaviour) |
| rovhazman#3167 date: Jan-12-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-200mm (SAL18200) Minolta 50mm f/1.7 |
| price paid: | 400 USD (new) |
| positive: | Very Sharp Excellent image quality F2.8!!! Good price |
| negative: | A little big and heavy Don't like the colors |
| comment: | Overall I am very happy with this purchase! It is very useful for low light situations. However, I always feel that the colors coming out of this lens are too harsh and not as pleasant as the Minolta colors. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 214
- sharpness: 4.59
- color: 4.45
- build: 4.14
- distortion: 4.16
- flare control: 4.45
- overall: 4.36
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login