Interactive Lens Reviews and Opinion.
Digital Camera Reviews

Reviews Views Date of last review
9 138348 4/15/2011
Recommended By Average Purchase
89% of reviewers $372.11
Reader Review Rating Averages
Readers' rating for
Construction Quality
Readers' rating for
Image Quality
Overall Rating

Keywords: Tamron Canon Nikon Minolta Pentax Wide Zoom 35mm Di SP Tested


Registered: April 2011
Posts: 10
Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di SP AF review by kaci
Review Date: 4/15/2011 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $350.00| Rating: 8 

Pros: sharpness, general IQ, AF, price
Cons: CA, distortion at 17mm

I am using this Tamron on 5D for a 6 months. Bought used, I am very satisfied. I dont think I would get better results with Canon 17-40 f4 L.

Excellent/Amazing sharpness in the centre, corners are really sharpt at 5.6 and higher. At 17mm there is lot of distortion, but at 35mm it is less distorted than my Canon EF 35/2.0. At f5.6 and higher the Tamron is also sharper! Colours and contrast are absolutely fine, AF is quick and accurate. CA is a problem, but mainly only in corners.

Registered: June 2008
Posts: 13
Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di SP AF review by HighSierra
Review Date: 6/30/2010 Would you recommend the product? No | Total Spent: $250.00| Rating: 5 

Pros: Light, low CA
Cons: Cheap construction, soft until well stopped down

Even after having my copy adjusted by Tamron, the corners were still extremely soft, until at least f/11, where they became more tolerable. I'd never use this lens wide-open, as the region of sharpness was restricted only to the very middle of the frame. CA was pretty low for an FX wide zoom.

I am not a fan of the construction of this lens. The focus ring rotates very freely, even with the AF motor of my D700 engaged. As a result, it was easy to inadvertantly turn the focus ring against the AF motor, which I can't imagine is good for the camera.

Furthermore, this lens is made from the cheapest, flimisiest feeling plastic I've ever seen on a lens. Noticeably worse than the other Tamrons I've owned, and worse than Nikon kit zooms. The hood is overly wide, making it difficult to fit the lens in a bag when mounted.

In the end, there are better FX wide zooms out there. The Tokina 20-35 is far better built, sharper, and constant f/2.8. It often sells for less than this inferior Tamron.

Registered: June 2010
Posts: 12
Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di SP AF review by JPMuller
Review Date: 6/27/2010 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $350.00| Rating: 9 

Pros: Excellent Lens... As good or better than Canon 16-35 2.8 II at a fraction of cost.
Cons: Slower autofocus, CA.

I was having a tough time trying to find an ultra wide for my full frame Canon. At first, I was hoping not to spend a lot of money, so I tried the Canon 20-35 2.8... Good lens and worth the money, but I really wanted something wider and it was a bit soft at the corners.

I continued to do extensive research on alternatives... I considered the 17 - 40 but wanted something with a wider aperture for low light work... I considered the first version of the Canon 16-35, but after reading reviews, bit the bullet and bought the newer version.

I was disappointed with the Canon 16-35 2.8 II... for $1500, I expected more from a lens.... I realized that wide angles are often soft in the corners and edge of the frame, but I was hoping a Canon L would help solve that problem - but it didn't. So I started to look for alternatives, since I figured, if a Canon L wide angle is going to be soft, then I shouldn't have to pay that much.

I came across this lens... SLR gave it a poor review for full frame... I suggest they test another copy. It was sharper than the Canon 16-35 2.8 MKII... I could barely believe it.... This is an amazing lens, forget about the fact that you can get one for under $400... It is sharper all across the frame except at 17mm - where in the corners, the Canon was a wee bit sharper. From 20mm up, this lens is noticeably sharper - especially at 24-35mm... At 35mm, the Canon MKII is horrible.


I returned the Canon and this Tamron is the one I kept.

Autofocus is not as good as the Canon... The Canon is blazing fast, but I find this lens fast enough... I lost 1 mm - big deal... CA is also very good on the Canon...

Buy this lens if you are looking for an ultra wide for Full Frame... you won't regret it, unless you need blazing speed and are willing to compromise Image Quality - Then get the Canon.

If you want it sharp right to the corner, then forget getting a zoom and get a prime.

Registered: September 2008
Posts: 1
Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di SP AF review by davidkilpatrick
Review Date: 9/21/2008 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $300.00| Rating: 8 

Pros: Minimal distortion, good stopped-down sharpness, low cost for full frame DSLRs
Cons: Soft and dark corners wide open at 17mm

The Tamron 17-35mm has been much maligned; test chart results never work with such lenses, as the targets are always too close when trying to measure distortion or field flatness at 17mm. In practice, with interiors, architecture and general scenes (distant subjects, relative to a 17mm focal length) the Tamron proves to have first-class orthographic geometry across its whole zoom range. This means your seascape won't have a curved horizon, your buildings will have parallel straight walls if you get the camera trued up to vertical, and you will not need software correction for many subjects.

I have been used the 17-35mm in its Konica Minolta form (the same lens in a different skin) on the new full frame Alpha 900 and you can see some test shots at:

i have included an example showing the vignetting and strong corner softening at 17mm wide open, but also results showing that f22 can be used on this 25.6 megapixel sensor for maximum depth of field without losing too much sharpness by diffraction; and that apertures like f8 and f11, in typical situations where a 17mm is used (105° angle of view), will give professionally usable results.

Registered: August 2007
Posts: 6
Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di SP AF review by ghamden
Review Date: 7/3/2008 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $180.00| Rating: 10 

Pros: Excellent IQ Good Contrast
Cons: none

I purchased this lens used and all i can say it is a Gem

If you can find one do so it is worth the price puts High end lens to same

Nikon Mount

Registered: December 2006
Posts: 6
Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di SP AF review by zooomlenz
Review Date: 12/11/2006 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $450.00| Rating: 9 

Pros: Cost, Focus Speed, Contrast, Sharpness
Cons: A little distortion....

For the price what can I say. The lens exhibits a little distortion at 17mm wide open but hey it's not a Nikon ED or a Canon L. Construction is good and overall image quality is outstanding. Recommend this lens?...totally.

Registered: October 2005
Posts: 12
Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di SP AF review by sivrajbm
Review Date: 11/4/2005 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $469.00| Rating: 9 

Pros: sharp, fast, smooth
Cons: not 2.8 thru range

The best that under 5 bills can buy.
I recently had an opportunity to buy a 16-35L.
I took it back, this little Tamron more than held it's own against the "L". I jsut can't see enough of a difference to justify paying another 12 bills for such a marginal improvement. The "L" was slighty faster, but not sharper @2.8 so what's the use.
This lens is still the bomb in my book. I couldn't replace it and I tried.

Registered: October 2005
Posts: 5
Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di SP AF review by softreq
Review Date: 10/28/2005 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $500.00| Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp, useful focal range
Cons: Max aperture changes from F2.8 to F4 in a fairly narrow zoom range.

The 17-35 lets you get in close to the action while achieving a wide framing of your shot.

The lens is very sharp at F5.6 or greater.

Some lens distortion at 17mm.

The curved lens surface makes you wonder if you will scratch it.

For the money, this is an excellent lens.

Registered: October 2005
Posts: 2
Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di SP AF review by Don
Review Date: 10/20/2005 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $500.00| Rating: 9 

Pros: See review
Cons: Outer rings turns when autofocusing, can't override the autofocus.

Have this lense and the 17-40L Canon lense. We prefer this lense for most interior and landscape shots. It's clean and sharp from f4 to f16 and from 17 to 35mm. At wider aperatures it's still very usable, just not as crisp. Colors are a little cooler than the 17-40L and not quite as contrasty, but very accurate. Very fast and accurate auto focus. It does take some getting used to after using Canon lenses --- the focus ring near the front of the lense turns when auto focusing; and cannot be overriden, you have to turn off the auto focus to manually focus the lense. This is a snall inconvenience that's easy to adjust too considering the quality of the images from it. Highly recommend it -- sharp....


This document copyright © 2009-2015,, all rights reserved.