Good Evening,
Photozone.de/8reviews/index.html has a good review with all the teckie info as well as real world sample pics. It looks like a good lens, better then the new Sigma 18-50 DC EX Macro, according to their report. Good Luck.
Have a nice night
Jim...
When I was looking at a fast walkaround lens I shot the Tamron and the Canon 17-40 f4. I walked away with the Tamron as it preforemed better than the Canon I shot. My results may be unique, but I love the lens. Quick AF although a bit noisy. The only thing I think I would replace it with now is the 24-70 f2.8L that Canon makes. I got to shoot a friends copy and it is a sweet, heavy hunk of glass. If you have a camera store near you go shoot the Tammy and see if you like it. I did.
When I was looking at a fast walkaround lens I shot the Tamron and the Canon 17-40 f4. I walked away with the Tamron as it preforemed better than the Canon I shot. My results may be unique, but I love the lens. Quick AF although a bit noisy. The only thing I think I would replace it with now is the 24-70 f2.8L that Canon makes. I got to shoot a friends copy and it is a sweet, heavy hunk of glass. If you have a camera store near you go shoot the Tammy and see if you like it. I did.
Good Morning,
I agree 100%. The Tamron has 10mm of additional reach, starts at 2.8, rather then 4.0, is quite sharp at the center wide open, and is about $200 less then the Canon.
Have a good day
Jim...
does anyone have anything to say about this lens..thanks janis
I own this lens and the IQ is very good. Unfortunately the way I needed to use it, in low light, it has problems. The AF in low light is not very fast and very noisy (as I was using it in concerts & plays this was not acceptable).
I have replaced this lens with the Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS which works just great for me and my situation.
If you can live with the AF noise the Tamron is an excellent choice and less expensive than the Canon.
I have the Tamron and love it. I previously had the canon 17-40 and was not impressed with it at all. I'm sure it was just my copy but I got rid of it, got the Tamron, and I still had almost $200 to spend on other stuff.
Eric
"My dad taught me everything I know, unfortunately he didn't teach me everything he knows" Dale Earnhardt Jr
It's better to be hated for who you are than to be loved for who you're not.
Comments
Photozone.de/8reviews/index.html has a good review with all the teckie info as well as real world sample pics. It looks like a good lens, better then the new Sigma 18-50 DC EX Macro, according to their report. Good Luck.
Have a nice night
Jim...
I agree 100%. The Tamron has 10mm of additional reach, starts at 2.8, rather then 4.0, is quite sharp at the center wide open, and is about $200 less then the Canon.
Have a good day
Jim...
I own this lens and the IQ is very good. Unfortunately the way I needed to use it, in low light, it has problems. The AF in low light is not very fast and very noisy (as I was using it in concerts & plays this was not acceptable).
I have replaced this lens with the Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS which works just great for me and my situation.
If you can live with the AF noise the Tamron is an excellent choice and less expensive than the Canon.
Smugmug site
Blog Portfolio
Facebook
Eric
It's better to be hated for who you are than to be loved for who you're not.
http://photosbyeric.smugmug.com