Tamron SP AF17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF) Lens Review
Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di Lens Review
July 2009, Carl Garrard
Tamron AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 Di LD SP Aspherical (IF) Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
 |
Tamron's SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-f4 Di Lens is a compact and relatively lightweight ultra-wide angle lens that is nearly as versatile on a full frame D/SLR as it is on an APS-C DSLR. This lens is currently priced from $300.00-$450.00 USD and seemingly offers quite a bargain for the price. It is a relatively fast maxiumum aperture lens that has a good specification sheet for both indoor and outdoor work. Mounted on an APS-C Alpha DSLR, it has a 25.5-52.5mm equivalent field of view, and does extra wide duty work for a full frame DSLR. This lens is similar in design to the Konica Minolta 17-35mm lens that has been out of production for quite some time. On the hunt for a bargain ultra-wide with respectable performance for my A900, I decided to purchase this lens and give it a go. |
Introduction and Features
I already own and reviewed a couple of ultra wide full frame compatible lenses for my A900, but I wanted to try the Tamron out to see how it would compete alongside the Sony Zeiss 16-35mm, Sigma 17-35mm, and Tokina 19-35mm lenses respectfully. While I really like the color and decent performance of the Tokina overall, I wanted to see what else I could find out there that had a bit sharper corner performance, while not sacrificing too much of my own money to do so. Also most importantly, I wanted a lens that was lightweight and compact enough to be practical for hiking photography that could act as an good to excellent wide angle landscape lens. Any other extra features would be considered a bonus by my standards.
The Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 lens seemed like a good fit for the task. Weight is good at 440 grams, and overall the size is actually quite compact for such a design, especially when the rather large and redundant lens hood is removed. It seems to have traits for a good landscape lens as the Tamron is an internal focusing design, which means that attachment of filters is no problem as the front element does not rotate. The front element does move out about 1/2" during zooming, and does not have a zoom lock. The Tamron is also digitally optimized with coatings specifically for digital sensors, which is supposed to keep reflections down from the rear element onto the digital sensor, and provide better contrast and color performance. So far so good on the specifications.
The rather decent magnification ratio of 1:5.4, and a good close focus distance of 11.8" was unexpected for such a wide angle lens. This means that shooting pictures of flowers or other smaller subjects is feasible which adds to its versatility for the purpose I bought it for. This is an improvement over the other lenses I have, and adds quite a bit to the appeal. Anytime a lens is good at more than one purpose, it makes me an instant fan.
| Internally, the Tamron has 14 elements divided into 11 groups, with one LD (low dispersion) element to combat chromatic abberations, and 3 Aspherical elements to tackle the rather difficult distortions such a focal length would inherently create. These type of corrective elements are usually found in lenses that cost much more than the Tamron. The overall angle of view is 104 to 63 degrees, and it has a 7 blade aperture design, the blades themselves are the curved design. The Tamron comes with a petal shaped lens hood, and front and rear caps, with the usual 6 year Tamron warranty and is made in Japan. |  |
Build and Image Quality
Build- The Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Lens is surprisingly well built mainly from high quality plastics and rubber, and has a rear metal lens mount. The rather large front element housing is also made from plastic, as are the filter threads. The Zoom Ring is very smooth in operation and decent enough in size (about an 1"1/4" in width). Even though the front element does extend forward about 1/2", the lens does not exhibit any zoom creep, therefore a zoom lock isn't needed. The block style grip surface strikes an excellent balance between grip and resistance to holding dust particles, truly a Tamron trademark quality that I prefer.
The Front Focus Ring is a bit larger than your typical Tamron lens, and operates without any perceivable play, with buttery smoothness unlike any Tamron I have used to date. It completely lacks the geary feel that other Tamrons sometimes exhibit, although this isn't an issue for me. Just note that this lens feels a bit better in operation than other Tamrons I have owned or used to date, and I normally like how Tamrons feel quite a bit.
The Focus Path takes about a full 1/4 turn yet is geared rather low which makes precise adjustments possible; manual focusing indeed is one of the traits I like most about this lens. It is obvious Tamron paid attention to photographers who want or need to use manual focus. Autofocusing Speed is zippy quick on the A900 and other Alpha DSLRs (tested on the A700 and A230), and overall pretty quiet considering the limitations of an in body focus motor.
Although I had read specifications about this lens, I didn't really know what to expect as far as build or feel were concerned. Needless to say for the price I am pleasantly surprised with the Tamron's build quality and attention to detail. Whether or not it will remain a keeper of mine depends greatly on the output of the image quality.
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Helpful review, Carl
Another interesting and helpful review, Carl. I have a new-in-box KM 17-35/2.8-4 sitting around just in case I decide to jump at the new Sony 12-18MP full-frame DSLR that you guys keep speculating about.
You began your review by saying that "Tamron's SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-f4 Di Lens is...nearly as versatile on a full frame D/SLR as it is on an APS-C DSLR." What makes this lens so versatile on an APS-C DSLR? It seems that the Tamron 17-50/2.8 would be a better choice unless one already owned the 17-35 or wanted to avoid buying a lens designed for cropped sensors. Does the 17-35 offer any superior performance compared to the 17-50?
Andy
Hi Andy, thank you and good question.
I think the 17-35 on an APS-C camera benefits from the sweet spot of its full frame image circle. Since it is rated as a SP (super performance) Tamron lens, the optics are top notch. Without having both side by side, it would be hard to say off hand just how that translates into real world improvements.
However, from what I have gathered about the 17-50 so far, I can say that the 17-35mm lens would have less vignetting and stronger corners than the 17-50 wide open. When using it on the A700 I was astonished at just how sharp this lens is in the center (80% or so) of the frame because the corners were so sharp.
An APS-C sensor will take advantage of that area better than full frame, albeit with a compromise with field of view. The 17-50 is designed for APS-C only and will not cover a full frame area. Although it performs admirably from my accounts, it still is an APS-C only lens.
The differences might be minimal but I think overall you'd see a slight advantage with the 17-35mm within the same overlapping range as the 17-50. Why I think it is versatile for both is because it is a focal length that works well for both formats specifically. If you have an A900 and A700, it is a lens that will cover both cameras without having to buy another lens. The 17-50 will work on the A900 for sure, but you will get vignetting in the viewfinder. But mostly, you will only be able to shoot in APS-C mode at 11mp.
Carl
Not a lens that I need right
Not a lens that I need right now, but I saw that flare shot and it got me interested. I would enjoy taking pictures with flare like that in them. I think it adds a unique element to portrait work. For landscape/still life it would obviously be a negative (which is what a wide angle is generally used for), but it got me thinking. Nice review.
Great review
Thanks for the great review!
I love the reviews here at this site because they are not only based on facts but also on a photographers experience. This makes it for me as a newcomer relatively easy to decide with which cons are negligible and which not.
One question still: How would you rate the old Minolta AF 17-35 F2.8-4 (D) compared to the Tamron on a full frame?
On an APS-C sensor ...
I found, doing just an ad hoc side-by-side, that the TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) is actually a skosh sharper and about 1/3 of an f/stop different (darker) than the Konica-Minolta AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 "D"
The major advantage is that it is full-frame capable ... but if you are shooting APS-C -> the 17-50mm would be the better lens.
Just word from the field, after owning and shooting both on the A700.
BTW: Great review.
Tamron 17-35
Where can you buy this in the States?
Not commercially available
The Tamron version of this lens has been discontinued in the Alpha mount, unfortunately. So no more new stock. I just bought an new old stock of the KM version on ebay about an hour ago. But that's the only place I know to get one.
Pretty good lens!
I have been using the 17-35mm for some time on Canon film and digital (1.6x).
There are a number of reviews available for this lens; I think it performs very
well, especially full-frame, around f/8 (using film)
Naturally film images are sharper than digital. Be careful who you blame for the
vignette. Canon full-frame digital bodies will contribute a full stop of vignette to
what we get from the lens. Film bodies (no vignette) will give a clear impression.
What if I need critical quality? I have some Canon primes that are pro quality.
Very sharp! If 35mm film won't do the job, chances are good medium format will.
I even have a couple of view cameras... Honestly, artists should think about what they're
doing! Is it sharpness, or image content that speaks?
This lens is compares favorably to optics that cost a lot of money! Switch to aperture
priority, fix the aperture at f/8 or f/9.5 and see what the images look like. On usual
print sizes, digital or film, I find images produced by this lens are quite respectable!
I have a few helpful suggestions. Wide angle distortion, which is drastic in the 17-24mm,
does make objects seem less sharp. Make sure the optic axis is perpendicular to the
frame, if you want sharp, undistorted images.
Just as some of the vignette can be a Canon full frame sensor, some loss of sharpness
can be a simple matter of flare. This 14-element design does produce problems of flare! Keep that
in mind when composing subjects. Flare can degrade image sharpness without being obvious,
so if an image is sharp on one side and soft on the other, don't blame the optical train. Blame
the artist, who might have a great image, just by blocking extraneous light with magazine or a
hat. Many artists are not aware that light sources outside the field of view can generate enough
flare to ruin image quality, but this is a fact of life.
One good way to get rid of flare, including the sharpness-robbing flare you can't easily see in
the viewfinder, is by attaching a polarizer. A newspaper is very effective! You just block the
optical path to the side of your lens without intruding on the image. If a polarizer is attached, you
don't even need to use a lens shade, which is pretty feeble protection from flare at 17mm focal length anyway.
Another stinker is camera shake. Tiny amounts of shake are more apparent for smaller subjects, which
is to say the background, which nearly always includes the edges and corners of the frame. Best to carry
out testing on a resolution chart, as engineers at Tamron did before sending the lens to production.
Tamron has let fly a few questionable lenses! This zoom is more example of high quality.
Unfortunately this lens doesn't have that much sought constant f/2.8 aperture, so Tamron halted production for
competitive reasons. Too bad. It's a better lens than the 28-80mm f/2.8 (have that lens too), which is still in
production. (bigger demand for that zoom range)
I don't want to spoil the mood. Physicists enjoy talking about optical systems! But when all is said and done, there
is a professional threshold for quality. Anyone is free to go the dizzy extremes of quality, but it is content, not
the glass, that makes a good photo. We should spend equal amounts of time considering the emotional and aesthetic
content of photos1