|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on July 19, 2019 Pros: Sharpness, lampshade included, price, f2.8 constant. Cons: Construction quality. Opinion: I had for a few months this excellent lens that I changed only for the matter of convenience at the focal level opting for a sigma 17-70C. Combined with my Canon 100D, it churned out crisp rows, nothing to do with the 18-55STM Canon which, in my opinion, had more saturated and pleasant hair colors. The lens is an excellent and inexpensive upgrade of the aforementioned 18-55, the only flaw that I found in my specimen a build quality not quite at the top (various crunches and dial zoom not fluid) that however does not absolutely affect the final result . If you do not need stabilization i recommend it also for its brightness being 2.8 on the whole focal, otherwise there is always the stabilized version that in many say be less sharp than this. |
  | sent on April 05, 2019 Pros: Luminous: F 2.8 at all focal lengths, sharp, light and economical Cons: It's not WR Opinion: I bought it to use it with the Pentax K70 instead of the 18-135 of the kit because of the greater brightness, I do not regret it despite the less focal excursion. It Loses a bit of sharpness only at full aperture but not so much, it is a light, cheap and bright handyman suitable also for portraits. The Focus, despite being controlled by the reflex is fast and precise even with low light. The construction is not metal but I do not think it is a flaw, it gains the weight, pity that it is not WR, I would have spared the purchase of the Pentax 18-135 made later. |
 | sent on March 17, 2019 Pros: Aperture 2.8 on all focal, center sharpness, blurry, size, price Cons: Autofocus, Weight Opinion: I recently purchased this lens to replace it with the AF-P 18-55 Kit on d7100, and I used it for street, landscape and a ceremony. Having 2.8 on the whole (gorgeous) focal length is really comfortable, and also allows you to bring only one lens, such as in ceremonies. (with the kit I was forced to use the 35 1.8, which still remains superior to the Tammy too). The fuzzy is nice, soft, and the sharpness in the center is very good, even at TA, although personally I never get out under f/3.2. The sore notes are, alas, the autofocus, far below the AF-P 18-55 (which is very fast and silent) and which in some cases forces to use the center point and block the AF. Despite the size we are not gigantic, the weight is very felt, so that I think it is absolutely unsuitable for street since (at least with d7100) it is impossible to use it with one hand for more than a few seconds. Finally, the sharpness at the corners is something terrible at 17 mm, and does not solve even closing the diaphragm (so little sharp that seems to move), but fortunately is limited right at the corners the problem. In conclusion, in my opinion, the judgement is more than positive. Despite the difficulties due to autofocus (which is the major problem) you bring home results far superior to a lens kit, just do more shots each time you are sure you have the result. Looking at the photos on the PC you immediately realize that it is another planet compared to 18-55, and I think it is worth buying (perhaps more used than new) to replace it to 18-55. However for the portrait, if possible, it always remains better a fixed lens (I use the 35 1.8) that at F2 is better (AF, blurry, sharpness) than the Tammy. |
 | sent on December 07, 2018 Pros: Precise quick and convenient Cons: Enter some dust, AF noisy But it is not a problem, filter ring tends to loosen up Opinion: It ' was my first lens "good" after starting the courses of photography, photographer mostly landscapes both in the evening and day and I wanted something that could cover a good range of focal to take me in travel and holidays without having to move to a large angle more Pushed. Taken used at a great price I liked it right away for the brightness and the bokeh it returns. The speed of AF is good and captures the moment when needed, I used it in some occasion of bike races and MTB where the distance from the subjects was minimal and never missed a shot. Loses some sharpness at the edges at the shorter focal lengths and suffers a bit of flare but nothing alarming "for the price is granted" I think the only downside is the assembly of the ring where the filter should be mounted... tends to loosen up, I found some videos on Y. Tub And how to intervene "so it is not an isolated my case", I entered some speck of dust as well but if I do not Kathy the diaphragm of so much for long exposures is not a problem |
 | sent on October 26, 2018 Pros: Sharpness, weight, color rendition. Cons: Autofocus, autofocus, autofocus. Flare. Opinion: It is already a few months that I am using only this lens mounted on my 70d, waiting to expand My park. Pros: I'm not an experienced photographer and, for the moment, I delight in my free time. I can say, however, that what impressed me most about this lens is the rendition of the colors that it manages to capture, colors always very real and alive. Also it is a lens that takes sharp pictures, if you know how to set the machine. It is then very light, not to be underestimated if you take long walks in the mountains. Built-in Lens hood. Cons: Turning to the cons, the only thing that today has never convinced me is the autofocus, slow, noisy, inaccurate. Especially just bought my equipment, being at first, I was so hard to focus on what I really wanted (automatically). I solved it by using it in manual, with the disadvantage of realizing that I was wrong the fire once loaded the Raw on the computer. Only flaw ' grave '. Suffers from light flare in backlight. |
 | sent on March 01, 2018 Pros: light, compact, fast, natural colors and excellent yield at the center Cons: loses sharpness at the edges, especially at 17mm, but nothing alarming Opinion: bought used years ago, he did his dirty duty for almost all the time mounted on a700 and now on a77ii, acting just fine on both. An irreplaceable travel companion when it came to carrying just one lens, it is the lens that I recommend for APSC: for its lightness and compactness (the sony 16 50 2.8 is true that it is motorized, but also has the front lens of 10mm wider, and weighs much more), the focal length from wide-angle to medium-telephoto, and the constant 2.8 most often used. I say most of the time because it is very good at the center, a little 'less on the edges, especially at 17 mm. improve a lot by tightening to 20 and / or closing a couple of steps, from 3.5 onwards becomes very clear, to 5.6 gives good portraits and 8 is ideal for landscapes. |
 | sent on October 29, 2017 Pros: Sharpness, brightness, chromatic rendering, price Cons: AF not precise and slow, distortion to the edges, important vignetting Opinion: Bought used last year, I'm very pleased with the performance of this standard zoom all do. I also used it for astro photography and I must say that I was very pleased with it. The most important problems concern vignetting and distortion at TA edges. As a lens I am all very happy to do. The lines and colors are very sharp and I would say that anyway for the price that is also found in the used is a lens that does not disappoint. |
 | sent on August 18, 2017 Pros: bo? Cons: bo? Opinion: Question: but is it better this or that with VC? ? RnrnThe comment must have a minimum length of 350 characters I have nothing to sayThe comment must have a minimum length of 350 characters I have nothing more to commentThe comment must have a minimum length of 350 characters I have nothing else to sayThe comment must have A minimum length of 350 characters I have nothing else to say |
 | sent on June 06, 2017 Pros: Price, brightness, haze. Cons: Filament, noisy and sometimes slow. Opinion: Objective purchased on eBay about 1 month ago, paid 229 euros. Acceptable sharpness; Some flare of too much in backlight (easily resolved problem). Af sometimes imprecise, perhaps defective so I do not feel like putting it in the "counter". For the price I would say it's a great upgrade to the classic 18-55. Color restoration is good and chromatic aberrations are contained. |
 | sent on April 27, 2017 Pros: Surely the price / Weight & Dimensions Cons: Autofocus noisy, plasticky, chilly Colors Opinion: I've owned this lens for about a year. E 'was certainly a faithful traveling companion used on a Canon 700D. Surely light and an innate portability. you put it on the machine and do not come off. There is better for the same price? but it will lose the flexibility. Having said that the quality of baked file is definitely good. What has always puzzled me is the color scheme. The colors were always cold. This was my perception. I sold it to switch to a totally different perspective (Art Sigma 24 F1.4). Different story. I feel much more at ease with the sigmoid, but we are comparing apples with pere.rnrnIn any case, definitely a good one. |
 | sent on February 10, 2017 Pros: Quality / Price, Size and Weight, General Construction Cons: for the price I would say no Opinion: I state that I use this lens as a "handyman" for 6 years; I also owned the VC version but I was not impressed because questo.rnLa construction is solid and sizes and light enough; produces quality images at all focal lengths, maybe not to f / 2.8 but just tighten to 5.6 to have the massimo.rnLo use with extreme pleasure as a "handyman" for both portraiture (has a blurred definitely not equal to the fixed 35mm / 50mm / 85mm but still enjoyable), landscaping and street. |
 | sent on December 05, 2016 Pros: Value for money Cons: If I have to put something tell AF a bit noisy. Opinion: Purchased in the past, sold for buying another lens and bought back because for me the case of a very good lens with an aperture of 2.8 throughout the range. Little to envy to the equivalent Nikon and Canon. Excellent sharpness that I found in the new I bought from recently for the Nikon D7200 where I feared that the resolution of the latter could not be the height of a lens now dated. I highly recommend it. |
 | sent on November 12, 2016 Pros: Value for money, size and weight to be a constant 2.8, consistency and aesthetics rings Cons: Distortion at 17mm, risolvenza maybe not excellent Opinion: Very modestly I state that my review is not an expert. I'm happy with the purchase of this lens, when compared to the cost you absolutely can not have the right to complain. The main flaw I found is the barrel distortion at 17 mm, especially evident in photographs of architectural elements. I had the impression that the risolvenza is excellent. Excellent upgrade over traditional 18-55 kit lens, especially if you are looking for a basic zoom lens with constant aperture 2.8 (were my needs), without overloading the system. I have rather enjoyed a significant improvement in quality compared to the same kit lens in good light conditions. I really like the build quality and aesthetics: very solid rings, queers I've read around. |
 | sent on October 30, 2016 Pros: Lightness, brightness, sharpness satisfactory, 67 mm filters, perfect for home use, price, quality / excellent price Cons: It is not a top of the range and not suitable for full-frame, bla bla bla Opinion: I state that I am not an amateur novice but for years I delight and enjoy taking pictures, even with good pseudo-professional results with the lightness always preferred by optical kit.rnHo and portability to the undisputed best quality optical TOP, and this 17-50 satisfies me fully for the use that I do with my nikon d7100.rnLeggero and not bulky, satisfactory sharpness (and by the way let's face it ... who you put on the Internet to zoom photos to 100% ?? and an exhibition of photographs you have ever seen the photos look with the magnifying lens ??). I never swayed by fads too technical, but I always shopped targeted at scopo.rnHo heard and read that it is noisy in focus and this has always intimidated me to buy. The conseguena was that I changed the 18-105 with a sigma (used) 18-50, which then proved too heavy for my taste. Countered with Nikon 18-140 (used), that I was not satisfied with sharpness from 18 to 35. Now I'm happy owner of Tamroit is not true that it is noisy, you only hear a slight hum when it drastically changes the focus, but it does not give me absolutely fastidio.rnrn |
 | sent on October 08, 2016 Pros: Cost, at constant aperture zoom range, good sharpness in optimal lighting conditions Cons: Marked lowering of quality in the most difficult lighting conditions, noisy and not very precise AF, vignetting marked with filters ND Opinion: Objective paid just over 200 euros, good quality when used during the day and if used at night or in backlighting the quality deteriorates sharply making it look like the photos almost fuorifuoco despite the focus is correct. Used in tandem with D7200 it provides a great focal range with a weight that are surprisingly transportable, if one is looking for the absolute quality we must look for other targets in other price ranges (such a sensor worthy goals of a certain range unfortunately). The vote, 8/10, is the average of a price to 10/10 and an absolute quality 6/10. I personally would not recommend it if used in tandem with very dense sensors such as latest nikon. |
 | sent on June 29, 2016 Pros: quality / price ratio, sharpness, f / 2.8 fixed Cons: AF in live view a bit slow, a little noisy AF, suffers a bit in low light Opinion: I got to try a little, but I can give you my immediate impressions. From the reviews I was expecting a pretty poor construction, however it did not look so bad. Light is but not by the poor plastic feeling. The zoom ring is hard enough, I would say excellent. I have not tested well in TA so I can not give an opinion on that. I tried some panorama at sunset and night. At sunset I noticed beautiful colors and step cleaning, using it on tripods both F / 8 and f / 11 at ISO 100. I also ate at night with the lights of the neighborhood, with a 30 second exposure on a tripod to F / 16 giving me back a picture with a beautiful PDC and sharpness. The only thing I noticed in this last photo is a slight flare at the top left, but easily fixed in post production. Mine is made in Vietnam. I would definitely recommend to anyone who is approaching the world of photography and wants to start shooting with a lens higher than that of the kit. As quality / price ratio I think is the best around as 17-50 f /2.8rnSicuramente, having not tried the Canon 17-55 f / 2.8 is higher, but costs nearly triple. |
 | sent on May 25, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, lightness, constant aperture. Cons: Economic sense of touch, noisy and a bit imprecise AF. Opinion: Using this lens for 5 years and I'm really happy, optically is really very, very good. It 'clear at all apertures and all focal lengths, is not affected too diffraction (better not to go beyond f / 20, anyway) and chromatic aberrations, even if present, are almost always correctable in post. The AF is reasonably fast but noisy and a bit imprecise, also the ring then turn you must be careful where you put your fingers. The distortion is normal. The construction is concrete but do not let positive emotions, but I can assure you it is built to last: my has no defect even after five years of hard use. Recommended! |
| sent on May 07, 2016 Pros: Crisp, price, zoom range, bokeh Cons: Suffering against the light, with vignette filter na Opinion: Took a few weeks to replace the 18/55 nikon kit, a whole other cosa..ottimo do everything from landscape to portrait ... you can carry around forever ... especially for landscapes at night in town 'with tripod and very bright and nitido..io l I use for portraits 50mm very clear already at 2.8 and has a nice bokeh (in alternetiva 50 1.8 I possess) cheaply made much |
 | sent on November 07, 2015 Pros: Price-sharp 2.8-excursion focale- Cons: Attaching the lens hood dancer Opinion: Taken for use on a Sony A200 and I must admit that is outstanding. Version Made in Japan with no Front-Back focus problems as reported by others and already crystal clear to 2.8.rnPerde a bit to 50mm but if used between 30-35 is a blade. Then calculating that with the crop factor of a APSC is like having a 25-75 2.8 therefore in line with the objective standards used by millions of photographers ... rnMi am very pleased and now look only to mount it on a more handsome body. rnDopo some time I realized that the bayonet which engages the lens hood has a slight play. Nothing problematic in use but to feel comfortable l I fixed with duct tape nero.rnP.S. Mass is said to slow fire inaccurate and noisy but I must say that I am using it on a a77 and not known none of these defects. |
| sent on August 24, 2015 Pros: Price. Lens construction. Good bokeh Cons: Photo a little soft from f / 2.8 to f / 4. He suffers in low light. Opinion: I have this lens for almost 1year but I wanted to leave my review only now. To be noted that an entry-level so I hope to give a good opinion. I think I noticed this lens a good color rendering and brightness. I also noticed, however, that in addition to picture a bit soft diaphragm down, with little light you see a little shake-and a bit of noise even if the latter was due to a bit of my d3100 which suffers a lot of noise from 800 iso su.rn Overall though I can be entertained because it is cheap and I also made good pictures. My advice is to choose aperture from f / 4 onwards, which I have done really very sharp photos with a nice bokeh, and even mount it on a D5300 that has a sensor very suitable for this goal. rn |
 | sent on March 26, 2015 Pros: Price, f 2.8 Total, Cons: AF a bit noisy. Opinion: Zoom short of good, low light AF struggles, construction improved, a little plasticky (problem in very objectives) A ??small problem arises in many Tamrom 17-50: the continuous take off and put the hood does loosen the small screws, to get them you have to remove a small round seal and very delicate, easily broken (to me and successfully) to be careful. rnObiettivo super consigliato.rnrnCiao rnrnRoss |
 | sent on December 09, 2014 Pros: F 2.8 fixed, good sharpness (the price at which it is sold), diameter filters are not too big, handy and "light". Cons: Af noisy, chromatic aberration, construction plasticky. Opinion: The lens is for what it costs more than good, then obviously you can not expect something. We must say that is a far cry from the 18-55 but many from 17-55 2.8 (which is phenomenal). The sharpness I'm not crazy, though also very good compared to the sigma 17-50, but for what I had read I expected better, then TA does not even seem the same goal. The Af is not bad, at least I have used in the evening and made his "dirty work." I have read many reviews which reported that the dark was bad, in my case I can say that it is not so, although it is very noisy. It is highly recommended for entry level of photography that had no other terms of comparison than the 18-55. |
 | sent on November 20, 2014 Pros: decent sharpness, construction, zoom lock switch Cons: lack of stabilization, soft at room temperature, not Full Time MF, AF inaccurate and slow Opinion: I use it on 600D. I expected a lot more clarity to this lens which, however, at least to me, is quite sharper than the 18-55 kit. however, the sharpest reached between the f4 and f7 / 9. at f2.8 is too soft. great lens also to do some portrait, gives a blurred discreto.qualche little problem with the AF, a bit slow and hard to focus in certain special circumstances. I recommend it given the excellent value for money |
 | sent on October 15, 2014 Pros: nitididà, price, convenience Cons: at a price that is I would say that you have no right to complain, but if we want to find a counter: the building could be improved. Opinion: Practical, zoom handyman: sharp maximum between 30 and 35mm and f4 f5,6.Con a little light if you can consiglerei to use f4 which is the ratio nitidità - optimal focus. The lens of course and 50mm 2.8 is slightly soft but in the end is what I always use and up to the largest. For those accustomed to shooting with a compact 3x and moved to SLR is the ideal goal. It is not comparable with the 18 55 which is undoubtedly less clear. A 35mm and compared with the Canon 50 1.8 after doing a thousand tests on a tripod I have concluded that it has the same nitidità to 2.8, for no other openings. So for those looking for a clear lens at the price this is ideal if you can even tweak compared to a fixed (although cheap). I could not notice distortion or leakage of clear 17mm. Money is the lens of the relationship best I have found. I would recommend this version and not the VC that I had changed and to have more nitidità. With a steady hand you can shoot at 1 / 15-1 / 10 with the smooth and 1.8 with the VC, then you can not recover a lot more from my point of view. If you disable the VC stabilized lens is sharper, but not as smooth as I repeat, is fenomenale.rn |
| sent on September 25, 2014 Pros: Constant aperture f2.8, sharpness, value for money Cons: AF slow, unwieldy in low light Opinion: Bought to replace the Nikon 16-85 in hopes of having more employment opportunities with the opening at f2.8. With proper lighting is very good, the interior becomes almost unusable, at least I'm not able to do so, having always used optical stabilized, it's probably my lack of experience that leads me to these conclusions. |
 | sent on September 25, 2014 Pros: light, focal length adequate for such a zoom, brightness, rounded diaphragm blades Cons: AF slow and inaccurate and noisy on d7000 at night is unmanageable, F / B focus partially solved in the menu to morbiso TA improves by f / 4, vignetting marked with filters, you have to take it a step or two larger ring adapter, at least 77 mm to mount an A + CPL and not to vignettare to 17 mm. Opinion: acuistato smooth version made in japan, 250 euro used, because I wanted a wide angle range of mano.rnall'inizio on d90 I was happy, it is a car that has a good autofocus.rnora I do not know if it's the d7000 or the problem of 'goal, but I did a test with cookies lined up and one in the middle of the row scoscato, focheggiando f / 4 of that cookie I often put in the fire before or at the most a focus back towards what dopo.rnrnse not You claim to highest precision there is also, but to do portraits or still life would not recommend it, it's too inaccurate, I have always rifocheggiare between a picture and the other on a tripod, for example. and I often mistaken as just totally detto.rnrndi pro, there is an f / 2.8 is already in disframma 4 improves a figure, especially in sharpness, a blade for charity ... rnil bokeh does not convince me, I who am accustomed to the blurred focal fisse.rnrndai 35 mm up lose quality. perhaps, in hindsight, those rispermierei 250 and I would add the necessary pertrovare a sigma 18-35 or nikon 17-55.rnrnnget caught on fashion, not worth it! |
 | sent on September 19, 2014 Pros: Constant aperture of 2.8, sharpness even at room temperature, weight and overall dimensions, value for money. Cons: AF slow and inpreciso Opinion: Sold the 16-85 I bought this lens, which opened me to the world of optics fixed aperture. Although plasticky to the touch with a sense of compactness and robustness (at least for me) fits well as a weight to all APSC SLR balancing well with the body. I did shots at RT in low light conditions with my D3100 and I have always pulled great shots well defined. The lack of VC is negligible in my opinion having regard to the range of focal lengths; range that is well matched by the report, to the street, and saw its 17 mm you can make some nice scenery. The aperture 2.8 still allows you to get nice soft blurred necessary. Excellent value for money. Optics sold only in favor of the Sigma 18-35 Art |
| sent on August 20, 2014 Pros: Price, f2.8 aperture, low weight, lens hood Cons: Front / back focus, softness in ta, construction plasticky Opinion: It's a great lens that offers the advantage of a fixed aperture f2.8 and a good sharpness at a very advantageous price, is now used under 250 euro and I would say that overall worth plenty of that figure. Has its flaws, such as building a bit 'plasticky that conveys a feeling of lack of solidity in the hands, the focus a bit' slow and rather noisy, some specimens suffer from front / back focus, but nothing that you can not manage once taken confidence and learned to know him. Perhaps it is a bit 'soft edges to f2.8, and tends to increase the focal length by stretching, but this is a flaw bearable, we say that the whole manages to achieve satisfactory results with a negligible expense. |
 | sent on July 10, 2014 Pros: 2.8 fixed aperture, sharpness, quality / price ratio. Cons: Focus slow and noisy. Opinion: The pros and cons of this lens have already been extensively described and also accurately reflect my thoughts. In relation to the price which is a great lens, very sharp already at f 2.8 to improve progressively as it closes a bit '. It offers beautiful colors and excellent performance in a variety of situations, especially in landscape photography. The f2, 8 can also do some portrait with some success, however, something missing to 50 mm. The af is not the best, and in low light and low contrast subjects lose even more .... but for dynamic photo or sports bisgona definitely opt for other lenses and do not ask this to do that for which it was not conceived. rnih conclusion a really good goal, affordable, that if used properly can give you great satisfaction. |
 | sent on June 25, 2014 Pros: very bright, good zoom range, good sharpness, light, money, great for those who want a good lens at a fraction of the cost Cons: construction is not flawless, non-stabilized (for those interested), not excellent sharpness at 50mm f 2.8 AF slow and noisy Opinion: I 've had years ago for Nikon and I was very satisfied, very convinced me the colors, sharpness, especially at F 4.0 and F 2.8 basso.rnA cost much to 50 mm is slightly morbidornLo recommend it to anyone who wish to replace the 'kit lens prezzo.rnrnSicuramente little better than the Tamron 17-50 VC (which I had) rnSicuramente worse than the Sigma 17-50 EX OS (which I excelled and is) rnrnNon've never tried 17-50/55 Canon and Nikon. |
  | sent on June 24, 2014 Pros: Color, sharpness, brightness, convenience, handyman, price. Cons: Slight distortion. Opinion: I bought this lens instead of the Nikon 18-105 and the difference you see it all! I did not notice any noise and focus as others, but only slight distortion. I took it as the only lens on holiday and I can say that is a good all-rounder, from landscapes to portraits to street. At this price a really good buy. |
 | sent on June 03, 2014 Pros: Statement (for its quality) rnBei colorirn Cons: at the moment no Opinion: I took a little from this point of view, leaving 18 105 nikon, was looking for something better from a standpoint of brightness. Leaving advice from others I've also chosen the Tamron (non VC version) and the purchase has been the focal azzeccato.rnMolto comfortable, sure would help a 24 120 f4 but in all honesty I can not afford. I bought it used and still under warranty of 4 years to 220 €. Really nice photos with very natural colors and not fired. I did not notice, unlike the others, the problem of noise autofocus. RNE 'perspective which I highly recommend, I mount it on a d5100 and personally (I'm not a photographer nor I pretend to want to become) I believe that the shots taken are really good, I hardly suffered from the lack of VC. Just get the classic measures recommended by the experts and is superabile.rnUn great buy in my parere.rn |
 | sent on May 19, 2014 Pros: Bright, Light, Sharp, Economic, Versatile Cons: Absence of stabilizer Opinion: I try to summarize my pensierio not repeat when called by all-altri.rn1 for the price it is worth 10 points! RN2-is really great for those who want to trash the 18-55 basern3-bright and excellent sharpness! Unfortunately RN4- the absence of the stabilizer in the closed situation forces you to pump up the ISO for not having tight to micromossi times! rnDiciamola all, or you € 800 for CANON (which in my opinion is worth all of them having it) or this is the best alternative NOT that a professional might have. |
 | sent on May 15, 2014 Pros: Quality / price ratio. sharpness. f 2.8 constant Cons: Focus slow in low light conditions worsen further. construction plasticky Opinion: I took this lens to replace the kit to the canon. I must say that I feel good, clear (a bit soft at 2.8), the colors are slightly cold but pleasant. The only flaw is the AF. Slow and noisy in low light conditions worsen further. It must, however, take into account that the price is very competitivo.rnQuindi if you try a lens by AF lightning this is not for you, the rest is good for the APSC format. |
 | sent on April 08, 2014 Pros: 2.8 Fixed, Sharpness, quality / price ratio, colors Cons: Focus slow and noisy, with the waning of the light a little tiring. Opinion: I purchased it to replace the 18-55 kit, it was like going from day to notte.rnColori beautiful, chromatic aberrations almost non-existent, very nitido.rnUnico against: the maf, slow and noisy, with little light starts an infinite loop but just close or go into manual and everything returns ok.rnLa recommend to everyone, very cheaply made, is worth much more than what it costs. |
 | sent on February 09, 2014 Pros: Sharpness, f/2.8 constant quality / price ratio, solid lens hood included, 5 year warranty! Cons: Af slow and a bit 'noisy, moving zoom ring on the contrary with respect to Canon.rnSe you remember the price against the forfeited all! Opinion: I bought this lens to replace the Canon EF-S 18-55 IS II Kit. I chose the non-stabilized version without regret! Excellent sharpness even at f/2.8 between 17-40. For a po'andando to 50. rnSe you change lens often becomes uncomfortable the opposite movement of the zoom ring compared to Canon. It is still a very comfortable all do, especially if you look at the quality / price ratio! rnIo I fell in love immediately! |
 | sent on November 06, 2013 Pros: Sharpness, constant aperture F2.8, quality / price ratio Cons: AF a bit slow and noisy, construction is not right at the top. Opinion: I wanted to replace my Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM with this perspective because I speak really well and I have to say that the color rendition I like a little tanto.rnCome all I chose the version made in japan to avoid problems of f / b focus. Of course, the AF is not like that of the sigmoid colon and even the building but all in all I'm happy with the choice made and I highly recommend it! |
 | sent on October 26, 2013 Pros: Sharpness, constant aperture to 2.8, price, lens hood included Cons: Af slow, a bit soft at 2.8, plasticky construction Opinion: I took this lens "handyman" for my Canon 650D, and really surprised me almost throughout, the sharpness is good if a little soft at room temperature and at maximum excursion, to 17 mm has a bit of distortion and conditions low light sometimes cane focus, but just turn a bit and the problem vanishes, for the rest I have nothing to say, the price is affordable, it is light, photo quality really good, flare and nonexistent Color very faithful, my problem has no B / F focus, compared to the 18-55 Canon kit is another world, I would recommend. |
 | sent on October 14, 2013 Pros: Aperture 2.8, price Cons: construction, cool colors, sharpness at 2.8, chromatic aberrations Opinion: After reading many reviews I decided to buy it. And regretted it. I never had any feeling with this lens, its construction plasticky did not give me the impression of having a quality product. A 2.8 is blurry and suffers from quite a few AC. Returns the color freddi.rnPer me is not worth the 300 Euros just for the fact that after a while 'you feel the need to do an upgrade ... better to save for a little' more time and go to a view migliore.rn |
 | sent on October 11, 2013 Pros: lightness, exceptional clarity in almost all focal lengths and apertures. Cons: distortion at 17mm, very soft to 2.8 40 to 50 mm (improves already '3.2 - 3.5), lightning-fast autofocus. Opinion: my copy and 'stra-sharp from 17 to 40 mm, and already' from 2.8. Falls from 40 to 50 mm at room temperature, but just a hair close and recovers fine, but 'optimal under 40mm. I took it for use in intermediate focal, a mo 'Normal and great satisfaction already' to 2.8. If you find a perfect specimen even at 50 mm 2.8, and 'a lens to have, but do not always take the right one and often varies from machine to machine. For its cost and 'recommended if you want a 2.8 with good-excellent performance opened, but always with the uncertainty of not finding a perfect copy. |
 | sent on August 08, 2013 Pros: 2.8 constant aperture, lens hood that attaches sturdy well, zoom lock switch. Cons: Front back focus from fear and lack of clarity from 40mm up, pasty in low light. Ring hard and in "reverse" than Canon. Opinion: I had the opportunity to try two loan for a few weeks, on 600d and 1000d. rnVolevo buy this objective to be able to shoot in low light but not worth it. With camera bodies in my possession I have encountered many problems in low light situations: rn-the front / back focus that makes it unusable in TA if you do not have the fine adjustment. rn-Auto Focus goes into crisirn-The photos are very pasty, with other objectives, including low-end (canon 18-55) in the same condition I had less problemi.rnrnIl f / b focus of course is solved by stopping down under good light and the pictures become sharper, but at that point it is useless to be a 2.8.rnrnNon bear really the reverse zoom than Canon. rnSarò also against the current and I've come to two specimens will be bad, but "for me it is not." [Cit.] RnFortunatamente I could try it before throwing money away. |
 | sent on July 18, 2013 Pros: TA sharpness, excellent value for Q / P, resistance to flare, constant 2.8 aperture. Cons: Maybe sometimes the focus is slow and noisy. Nothing fancy or scary. Opinion: It is the perfect finish I was looking for minimal expense maximum yield. Great for portraits, landscapes and photo notturne.La focus is sometimes slow and noisy m nothing annoying ... Excellent lens. Highly recommended! I prefer it to his brother canon 17-40mm f4 .. With Tammy we can play a lot più.rnSe you want a better optics then you go on a drive, this Tamron has nothing to envy his brother canon 17-55f2.8 which also costs a lot more. |
 | sent on July 14, 2013 Pros: Sharpness impressive 2.8 fixed, true color, brightness, price, lens hood Cons: AF a bit cumbersome and slow but acceptable Opinion: I think it is a really good lens, bright, sharpness (at any aperture) is really impressive and as for me the colors need very little PP. The difference between this lens and the 18-55 IS canon with which I replaced it is really abissale.rnA this price is not any better, the only downside is the AF a little slow and cumbersome, especially in conditions of low light, but nothing eccessivo.rnCONSIGLIATISSIMO! rn |
 | sent on June 25, 2013 Pros: Excellent sharpness throughout the frame f 2.8 - Bokeh soft and perfectly "round" - Chromatic aberrations and purple fringing practically inesisteni - Colours very real Cons: AF in a bit noisy that require fine adjustments - not excellent build quality (see below) Opinion: A little gem for everyone! rnrnOtticamente this lens surprised me since the first day I owned it. I do not speak of a pure speech quality / price, is almost free from any flaw, it seems to have in hand a fixed focal length of those superblasonati for so works well. The thing I love is that I can work pretty much always at f2.8 without worries of little sharpness (both at the center than at the edges) and an AF that despite the noise, it is a true sniper. The aberrations are virtually non-existent and has an excellent resistance to flare.rnrnPassiamo defects:. My model suffers from front focus and I had to adjust to +10 with fine adjustments. From the constructive side my copy (but I have seen on the net that is quite common) had a problem with the ring that covers the last front lens: at one point he started to have a game annoying due to the continuous slide the lens with a lens camera from the bag. Luckily I found a video on youtube where they explain how to fix the problem with a small screwdriver small star by & anduro; 3.rnrnConsigliatissimo who is looking for a handyman zoom for APS and requires no stabilizer. I have preferred to model and stabilized at 17-55 f 2.8 canon after reading the reviews and seeing JUZAPHOTO comparisons of optical quality of www.the-digital-picture.comrnrn |
user17361  | sent on May 17, 2013 Pros: Quality / Price - Filter diameter - f/2.8 constant - Zoom Lock Cons: Af loud - soft wide open especially when you are at full extension - construction plasticky Opinion: A lens that when compared to the purchase price is great, it would have been perfect if it was soft wide open especially at full extension, the AF motor looks like a mosquito but it's fast! RnSi is a constant f/2.8 throughout the focal length but that by its best from f/3.5 to find then its peak at f / 8, good resistance to flare, the construction is plasticky and we must be careful not to bump the lens hood otherwise it breaks easily, it has then its flaws but if we see the price and what it offers, and a lens that I recommend, if you have the chance check that it is produced in japan and china not from your dealer! |
 | sent on May 14, 2013 Pros: Constant aperture over the entire focal length. Very clear and objective way, falls slightly to TA, you can cover focal lengths from wide angle to medium telephoto, lightweight and compact. The lens hood is included and 67 mm filters are cheaper to buy. Price on the new content that is on second. Cons: The autofocus motor is noisy and "slow" when compared to the various USM and HSM. Building a little plasticky materials. Hood often difficult to remove. Do not weather sealed and a few grains of dust, in certain circumstances, is able to penetrate inside when the zoom is extended. Opinion: Bought to be used as the lens handyman on my 60D, has always lived up to its name. Always clear, fails to return very sharp images and well balanced from the point of view of color. The autofocus is of an old design, so there is no need to ask the speed performance exaggerated. It's very good at his job but do not overdo it. The construction is a bit too plasticky, might return an impression of excessive strength, although I must say that in the end has always behaved very well. The positive side of the plastic used is in weight, really content combined with my 60D it was a pairing ideal for hiking backpacking. The lens hood often tends to get stuck and you have to do a lot of force to remove it. But apart from some peccadillo is a lens that I would strongly recommend to anyone who wanted to find an inexpensive alternative to the various objectives in the kit. Do not forget the price really tempting that makes a lens, good quality & aserious ;/ price. Recommended. |
 | sent on April 28, 2013 Pros: Color rendition, bokeh, sharpness with proper aperture. Cons: when anybody! maybe a little soft at full aperture. about noise autofocus ... I do not consider this. Opinion: I took the lens a couple of months ago on amazon. And 'result more than lives up to expectations! beautiful color rendition, sharpness great if you avoid opening the iris diaphragm. but if you wanted to shoot at 2.8 in each case will give excellent results. I tried also to the light to determine their resistance to flare and did not disappoint, very very disturbing content. I shoot in RAW and gives file on which you need very little tweaking in PP, almost ready to use. In short, in my opinion an excellent lens from the quality / price ratio exceptional. |
 | sent on March 31, 2013 Pros: Sharpness, price, availability, warranty (5 years), brightness Cons: At this price? NONE Opinion: I was not to buy this objective because of opinions more or less marked on focus, noise and construction. Luckily I changed my mind and not a little. Although it may be agreed that the autofocus is noisy I also understand "compared to what" all this noise does not perceive, remember the Canon 50mm f/1.8 that will surely be felt, but from the reviews that you read I was ready to buy earplugs ... Rest assured it is not. The noise remains the standard of a USM motor and the same can be said for accuracy. As soon as I got the lens I tested the three batteries to check F / B Focus, well precise as a clock. The test was performed in a small room with two bajour lit desk, difficoltà.rnPer without regard to building the rings are accurate and robust, the lens hood has a great groove and the lens has a good weight in case of the undersigned perfectly balances the EOS 50D. Is notsealed, I can not insert it between the "against" because in this price range (277 € sull'Amazzone with 5 years warranty) would be an exaggeration to claim it. The plastic dominates but definitely still gives feeling of strength and solidity, for instance does not seem a plasticotto that you can break at any moment. RnDa praise the sharpness and image quality in general, fantastic and unexpected, you just look at the photos taken with this lens here or on other photo sites to get an idea. rnrnGiusto for the record I own in a kit Canon EF 17-40L, Canon EF 50mm f/1.8, Canon EF 24mm f/2.8, Canon EF 75 - 300 I recently sold a Canon EF-S 17-85 and a Canon EF-S 18-55 IS II so it's not that I have never tried lenses before. rnrnBasandomi direct experience doing so pretend I did not never read anything about this little gem (to erase all forms of prejudice) I can confirm the good in everything and the quality / price ratio superlative. If you need something brightnessknow and sharp in this range of focal lengths there is no reason for not recommending it, take it with your eyes closed. |
 | sent on February 15, 2013 Pros: value for money, opening 2.8, sharpness Cons: building, especially the hood, not just af lightning and difficulty in low light type churches Opinion: Excellent "all rounder" for aps-c that has nothing to envy compared to big brothers brand, especially if it relates to the disbursement monstrously lower. Sharpest from f4 on, but also af 2.8 is not doing badly. Great for photos of the city (monuments, etc..) And landscapes, good for the night. Mounting it on a tripod and using all the techniques of the case, the result is assured in every situation. Much less powerful freehand in low light situations such as in church (weddings etc..). Good resistance to flare. I always carry with me in all my travels, I mount on the D7000 and I could not do without. |
 | sent on February 15, 2013 Pros: 2.8, excellent sharpness, relationship qualitàprezzo eccezionale.rn Cons: AF, resistance to flare, maybe you mount, even on FF ... Opinion: Taken as the first lens after 18-55canon and the jump proved to be very impressive, resulting in joy for the occhi.rnDopo months of use I can only complain about a poorly performing AF especially in low light, but at this price you can not expect really better. (The ring for the focus wheel is approximate and less than 60 degrees). RnIl flare is present, but I was never disturbed over tanto.rnUsato indoors you notice distortion (at 17mm) really small and easily removed in PP. RNLA construction is not a problem, I also have the canon 85 and 100 macro and all 3 give a good impression of solidità.rnUn 'truly excellent optics which I can only confirm the excellent reputation pity that do not mount of FF, which makes it a little less "definitive." |
 | sent on January 18, 2013 Pros: sharpness at room temperature, ratio Q / P, focal length, f/2.8 fixed .. Cons: plasticky, af noisy but acceptable, otherwise all ok Opinion: I bought the 17-50 for less than a month and the first impressions are good, really good sharpness with fixed f/2.8 very handy on several occasions, it has a very good resistance to flare. the AF is noisy but overall is pretty good and fast even in low light conditions. also including the lens hood (which does not happen with canon) .. in short, is a great lens that advice .. |
 | sent on January 09, 2013 Pros: f/2.8, sharpness, value for money Cons: construction materials, is not an effective 50mm (is a bit less) Opinion: I bought this lens to replace my canon 17-85 is usm and I must admit I was really surprised. The sharpness in the center is excellent on all diaphragms, a little less on the sides that see the best results from f/5.6 up. The flare is quite low as well as the aberazione color! Lately I wanted to compare it to, only on the front of the sharpness with the Canon 50mm 1.8 I have, and found that the Tamron is much higher on all diaphragms compared to any extension, (so I assume that it is also the canon 50mm 1.4 that coast perhaps more than Tamron in question). F the engine in my opinion is not fast enough to be ultrasonic, a bit noisy but nothing che.rnIn conclusion I think it is a very good and versatile lens that has nothing to envy to the optic same price. |
 | sent on December 23, 2012 Pros: Sharpness, light, good colors, constant f2.8 Cons: Construction plasticky, af a bit 'slow and noisy Opinion: The 17-50 possess it for about 7 months. I've used it in many different situations: shots on the beach, mountain, forest, snowfield .. I've never had any major problems, perhaps the colors sometimes are chilly but nothing not sistemabile with lightroom in two minutes. You have to consider the quality attractive price. Bought a 290 euro online, you can not expect the performance of a canon 17-40 but all in all a good goal. |
 | sent on December 20, 2012 Pros: Sharpness, constant aperture F2, 8, price and quality. Lens hood (Canon does not give you anything) MAF fast enough. Cons: Construction plastic. Opinion: From the Canon 17/85 after diaphragm rupture: (do not regret it at all with the Tamron 17/50.rnHo immediately noticed the difference in sharpness and very beautiful colors and very real, very light, allowing you to take in situations difficili.rnPer me a little bit to do everything, from landscapes to portraits, good buy with a really low price to concorenza.rnConsigliato respects to those who are just starting out and even after: o) rn |
 | sent on November 13, 2012 Pros: Sharpness, color, brightness' F/2.8 Cons: A bit plasticky Opinion: Has replaced my 18-55 kit and I have to say that it 'was a big upgrade, first of all brightness' setting to 2.8 on all Focal lets you shoot in low-light conditions quite slowly, then the high sharpness of all the focal, highly recommended 'cause considering quality' which is really at a nominal price. |
 | sent on October 20, 2012 Pros: Sharpness, f2.8, color, weight, price, lens hood Cons: AF noisy and not very fast Opinion: The construction is of average quality plastics look good and fit well finished but there are too many games in particular in the ring zoom.rnL 'only comment on the quality of the image is the distortion at 17mm (removed by a click in PP ) while sharpness, color reproduction and control of aberrations are at the top, especially for this prezzo.rnL 'absence of the stabilizer is not a problem thanks to the opening max and constant f2.8.rnDai few tests carried out the fuzzy seems very good (softer than canon 50 f1.8). rnIl weight is perfect to balance my car (1000d + BG), is obviously a ton compared to 18-55 but just see the front lens (67mm filters) to understand why. rnL'AF is very noisy but without that "click-click" typical of 50 f1.8, the speed is good for the engine type, say higher than the 18-55 kit from but markedly lower than any USM. However, the brightness of the lens loses little time to figure out where to put the machine infuoco.rnBello the lens hood and a good idea of ??the zoom lock at 17mm (for now useless because it is still very close). RNIN definitely a good buy, it is not a cut but a skyscraper above the 18-55 kit from and I think will give me a lot of satisfaction. |
 | sent on September 24, 2012 Pros: clarity, cost, resistance to flare, containing ac Cons: af noisy, plasticky Opinion: ThaT is, if you have a camera aps, is a must-buy Used x do night shots on a tripod with a focal length anywhere from 8 to 14 ... A BLADE, impressive. Excellent as always keep standard lens attached, useless in my opinion the stabilized version that loses a little in performance, but if you get used to this lens, the possible transition to acting will be a drama, you will have to shell out to have similar performance 6, 7 times the cost of tammino x have a top nikon, canon, sony .. Defect af ... inaccurate with low light situations, the lens hood mounting plastic. |
 | sent on August 18, 2012 Pros: Excellent sharpness and detachment plans Cons: Made against the Opinion: Great lens, especially if placed in relation to what it costs. The thing that impressed me the most is the good three-dimensionality of the picture, which I did not expect it sincerely. Even the sharpness is very good, impressive even when closed to f4 or f5.6. A bit 'disappointing performance against the light, but a lens that costs less than € 300 you can not expect miracles! |
 | sent on July 18, 2012 Pros: Sharpness (including TA), ratio Q / P, Bright, nuts accurate, Bayonet metal Cons: Autofocus a bit 'slow and sometimes inaccurate Opinion: I bought this lens for my 40D to have a greater focal length range from wide angle to the 24-70 L will not let me get on APS-C. The price paid (used at 200 €, including UV filters and polarizer) I was expecting a level much lower than the Canon, despite the positive references read on the web. Instead, after a month of heavy use, I can say that and be extremely impressed by this light. Sharper the "lustful" Canon, nice colors, good resistance to flares in backlight, bokeh more than good (for my taste), focal length that I find perfect for my use (from landscape to portrait). At full aperture has been working very well from 17 to 50mm, though the sharpness becomes impressive closing a bit '(but if I buy a 2.8 is because I want to shoot at that focal length). The construction level is not at all comparable to the Canon (neither the 24-70 nor the 17-55) is plasticky, but less than I expected. The collars are hard to the right point and I find it very previse. The lens hood is supplied, it gives an indication of lack of attention to detail (but Canon "forget" just to provide it unless it is optical with red circle), its duty, however, it plays very well. The only flaw is found, if I may say so, is the autofocus. Canon used all'USM found it slow, noisy and inaccurate. Not that it will do his duty under normal conditions (in fact, does not miss a shot), but, for example, shooting at short intervals moving scenes, is able to focus when focus almost random [once taken his hand is a problem that is solved with a little 'attention, but it seems fair to report]. At any rate the quality / price ratio is very high, it is a view that, unless you have extremely more substantial budget, MUST appear in the scope of any amateur photographer as standard zoom. |
 | sent on July 17, 2012 Pros: Focal length, sharpness at room temperature, ratio Q / P Cons: AF cumbersome in very low light conditions Opinion: This lens I actually do, extraordinary sharpness and brightness, constant aperture of f/2.8 throughout the focal length (even if it gives the best of itself between f/5.6 and f / 8), distortions contained between 17-20 while the rest all ok, and despite what I've heard around, the buzz of the engine I was not annoying (it will be that I have not had a USM then I do not know the value of the noise). In addition, he also included the lens hood (which Canon does with the consumer optics, but only with the Luxury), the diameter of 67mm allowed me also to inherit the UV filters and polarizer I used the canon 18-135 included in kit avoiding the need to continually buy nuovi.rnIn Ultimately, this view in its price range has absolutely rivals (because below 300 euro is not anything like that), I personally decided to buy it after a long ballot with fifty f / 1.4 and I have not regretted it. |
 | sent on March 04, 2012 Pros: Excellent value for money, AF quite fast and accurate, excellent image quality, excellent resistance to flare, very bright. Cons: AF noisy Opinion: Using this objective the satisfaction of three and a half years. Constructed with high quality plastic and glass. E 'equipped with a zoom ring lock, and hood. It has an ultrasonic motor for autofocus and feels, in fact, the AF is quite fast but also a bit 'noisy, but still accurate. The picture quality is excellent at 35mm but also for the rest of the excursion remains quite good. The colors are good, excellent resistance to flare and chromatic aberrations very small except at 17mm where they appear to a greater extent, but nothing that can not be corrected with PS. F2.8 constant for all focal lengths makes it a lens very bright. In conclusion a great lens with excellent value for money. |
 | sent on February 22, 2012 Pros: Excellent colors, light, versatile, low cost, and offers very much Cons: Build quality, rimorosità in focus ring a bit 'hard Opinion: I do not own this lens, but I have paid for a session of shots. I used it mainly for landscapes, 17 mm, with an opening on the f13. The build quality is not excellent but not so bad. Let's say a good middle ground. The focus is really noisy but it did not seem particularly slow (and say that I have almost always used in live view). The ring instead it seemed a bit 'too rigid and impractical. In return, the image quality is more than acceptable, with rich colors and amazing. Ideal as everything to do with a very good value for money. and if we consider that arrives at f2.8 and that is also stabilized, for what it costs is a real bargain. |
 | sent on February 02, 2012 Pros: Sharpness, excellent image quality, resistance to flare, opening 2.8 constant, accurate AF, lens hood, sturdy, price Cons: AF noisy Opinion: I took this lens to replace the 18-55 II IS, the leap has been remarkable since the first photo. Excellent sharpness at all focal lengths even if the best of the intermediate focal around 35 mm. At 17 mm there is a slight vignetting wide open but nothing that can not be corrected in PP. The autofocus is a bit 'noisy, but always accurate so I do not regard it as a defect. I was also impressed by the robust construction and the nuts a little 'hard at first, but very easy to use. In conclusion, an objective all-rounder road recommended for those on a budget as less than € 300 you have a lens premium quality. |
 | sent on December 06, 2011 Pros: Fixed aperture of f/2.8, sharpness, very good resistance to flare, competitive price. Cons: AF a bit cumbersome, but still acceptable. Opinion: I bought this lens a little over 6 months ago. To the touch with a building a little plasticky but still sturdy and of good quality. The ring to zoom is smooth but a little duretta to turn (better, so at least it prevents the lens rotates on its own). As for the image quality that you can pull off with this goal, I can say that:-The sharpness: it is good to 35 mm. A 17mm and 50mm instead obviously lost a little. -The colors are good-has a flare resistance against the truly good. -Is a bright lens whose aperture can be opened up to 2.8. allows you to take in the most critical situations in which the light is not molta.l 'AF is fast enough. For the price and the quality he has, I find a really good goal. |
user579 | sent on September 28, 2011 Pros: Sharpness, constant aperture 2.8, value for money, a few AC, but usm autofocus quickly and precisely even in low light, zoom lock, supplied lens hood (Canon learn!). Cons: Construction plasticky, af noisy, my copy has color a little too cold, does not reach to 50mm (compared to canon 50 1.8), but at about 46-47mm, apparent decrease of sharpness at room temperature when it is at maximum extension. Opinion: I have this lens for about a year and a half and I think it is a really good compromise between quality and price. Has an excellent sharpness at all openings (giving the maximum af/5.6-8), a range of focal very versatile for most of the situations (not just "rounder" as the 15-85 but almost), and a good rapid af and precise. The only flaw, the AF is noisy (more than the 18-55is) and several times I found myself in circumstances of silence (like a church) where that little noise was quite annoying. For the rest it is a great lens, only the colors they need a heated PP; distorts relatively little and also has a good resistance to flare. I am very satisfied, moreover has the advantage that is used (I mean good used) to just over € 200 and also the thread size (67mm) allow for the purchase of filters at affordable prices. Highly recommended! |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
