17-35mm F2.8-4 EX DG ASPHERICAL HSM Izzit good?

[Jemapela]

it's very pronounced at 17mm. Less so but still obvious at other f lengths. doesn't improve much until stopped down to f5.6 or f8. Can't quite remember but it's no wider than f5.6.

The tamron - Not tack sharp wide open but usable, of which i can't say the same for the Sigma. Tack sharpness comes when stopped down one stop from wide open(ie. f4 at 17mm and f5.6 at 35mm) Contrast and colour saturation is comparable to the 17-40/4L. I personally prefer the Tamron's colour because it is slightly warmer and I tend to use it quite a bit for portrait work, so for me that's a plus cos I like warm images. Of course, you could adjust colour in PS so it may not really be an issue. If you don't like applying too much DI, like me, then you may be better off choosing lenses that give you either warmish, cooler,or neutral images, depending on your preference.

The AF is in no way slow. It's not as fast as HSM but really unless you're gonna use it for sports or fast moving subjects it doesn't really matter. HSM will save you about 0.25-0.5s in focusing time, maybe less as this is my rough estimate. Focusing time is definitely less than a second given adequate light. It's really a non-issue for me as I hardly use wides to cover sporting events. That being said, I have covered a sports day event using the tamron and focus has definitely been fast enough to give me all the moments i wanted. IMHO, I think HSM and USM, while nice to have, is not a key consideration when buying wides. They are much more important for teles when lenses have to hunt through distance scales running in 10s of metres, rather than for wides where you're talking about 0.3-3m.

I didn't know lenses could give warmish or coolish tint. I thought the glass should be neutral or is that the ideal case? In the real world, it's not/seldom neutral? Please enlighten.

Ok, I could be nitpicking on my own Tamron for being a bit slow in AF. I feel that it's slow (even compared to the kit lens). However, I agree that wides are not often used on sports or anything that tends to move quickly so many people can live with a slightly slower AF. I use the Tamron mostly for portraits (and the models aren't running or dancing all the time).

Yes, the USM or HSM is more important with tele lenses. Interestingly, the angle of rotation of this Tamron lens is quite a lot (even though it's only 0.3-3m) compared to my Canon 100-300mm USM (going a wider 1.5-20m). Have you notice how some lenses go from minimum to infinity with a small rotational angle? I suspect it's the optical design.

Generally you are correct in saying that USM or HSM is useful in tele lenses for the wider distances marked on the lens scale. I would also contribute to say that USM or HSM is useful in moving the larger and heavier elements in a tele lens (or fast prime lens) faster to focus quicker.

 

[imouyang]

I bought the Tamron lens in Australia. If you want a rough estimate or to compare it with S'pore, it's AUD $750.

I haven't posted any samples in my gallery (can't be bothered) but it's sharp. Ehh... maybe I should add "really" sharp. Without using a magnifier lens or microscope and becoming a no-life lens-comparer, it looks better than most typical 3rd party zoom lens out there, and can look as good as a prime wideangle.

Once again, there was a reviewer on the web who compared it with the Canon 17-40 L with sample images. Both lenses are optically on par!

One more thing to ask... Ur tamron... Has it fogged b4? It seems like Tamron lens are less likely to fog... Izzit true??

 

[sidder]

i guess lens sharpness varies across the entire batch of the same lens from the same manufacturer. U have the extremes where the lens is really sharp, lemons which are well soft as it can get. The major thing abt buying a lens is that u try a few copies at the shop and preview it the shop's PC. Take shots at widest and popular apertures. Go through the pics and then settle for the sharpest copy.
We owners of lenses may have our own stand, Tamron users find that theirs are sharp and so do Sigma users unless a person have both lens from both manufacturers or made a side by side comparison of the images from both lenses before. U may rely on MTF graphs but its a matter of trust with the manufacturer's info.
The offering of sample pics from the lens concern by some of the owners in the forums here are definitely helpful in ouyang's decision.

Bottonline, let the pics do the talking for the lens. IT tells u EVERYTHING.

 

[sidder]

one more thing to add is colour cast (whether the lens is neutral or warm) is also subjective. ITs more important in terms of color that the lens is able to give good color reproduction on your DSLR. Also the lens must also be able to sastify your criteria in handling the higlights and shadows for your photography style.

A lens which works for a photogrpahy might not work for another.

 

[Jemapela]

One more thing to ask... Ur tamron... Has it fogged b4? It seems like Tamron lens are less likely to fog... Izzit true??

I bought the Tamron this August, and it's my first Tamron lens. It's still too new to fog (if it's gonna fog eventually).

I haven't come across anyone complaining of Tamron lenses fogging up but I have heard of several about Sigma, and I'm one such affected Sigma owner. Actually, my first cheapo Sigma 400mm (non APO) didn't fog for the several years I had it. After I lost that lens, I got the Sigma 400mm APO but it fogged up in about a year.

Just to add, back in the film and manual focus days, Tamron lenses were generally more expensive than Sigma and Tokina. Tamron was considered as slightly more premium. Probably because of its lower prices and wider choices, Sigma remained the most popular of all 3rd party lens makers, and so I chose to buy Sigma despite hearing praise for Tamron and some Tokina lenses. In recent years, Tamron prices seem to have come down. I suspect that Tamron is trying to match the prices of Sigma and Tokina with possibly a slight compromise in quality and durability.

It's not unusual because much of the world now seems to accept a compromise. You can see it with Canon and Nikon lenses. Previously, many Canon EF lenses were built very well and solidly (like 50mm f/1.8 Mk 1) but now many lenses don't have a distance scale and are made of plastic. Nikon G series lenses were also introduced with a lesser build quality and without an aperture ring.

 

[imouyang]

I bought the Tamron this August, and it's my first Tamron lens. It's still too new to fog (if it's gonna fog eventually).

I haven't come across anyone complaining of Tamron lenses fogging up but I have heard of several about Sigma, and I'm one such affected Sigma owner. Actually, my first cheapo Sigma 400mm (non APO) didn't fog for the several years I had it. After I lost that lens, I got the Sigma 400mm APO but it fogged up in about a year.

Just to add, back in the film and manual focus days, Tamron lenses were generally more expensive than Sigma and Tokina. Tamron was considered as slightly more premium. Probably because of its lower prices and wider choices, Sigma remained the most popular of all 3rd party lens makers, and so I chose to buy Sigma despite hearing praise for Tamron and some Tokina lenses. In recent years, Tamron prices seem to have come down. I suspect that Tamron is trying to match the prices of Sigma and Tokina with possibly a slight compromise in quality and durability.

It's not unusual because much of the world now seems to accept a compromise. You can see it with Canon and Nikon lenses. Previously, many Canon EF lenses were built very well and solidly (like 50mm f/1.8 Mk 1) but now many lenses don't have a distance scale and are made of plastic. Nikon G series lenses were also introduced with a lesser build quality and without an aperture ring.

Haha... Agreed:thumbsup: Guess thats how the world goes... Give and Take... Thx Anyway!