• LD potion for glorious picture quality
  • Di record meets digital SLR opening characteristics
  • Includes front as well as back lens top as well as a lens case
  • Fast limit orifice of f/2.8 during a far-reaching point of view end
  • Maximum magnification – 1 – 9.6

Product Description
TAMRON AF 17-35MM F/2.8-4 DI LD Super Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon

Tamron AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 Di LD SP Aspherical Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

5 Reviews

  1. Deluxe says:

    On a 1.6x crop factor camera like the Canon 350D/20D, the effective area of this lens is equivalent to a 27-56mm lens on a old school film-based SLR camera. As I come from a background of extensive 50mm lens use, I find this to be my most common working range (and I have four other excellent lenses in my bag to choose from).

    My reason for purchase was to replace the pathetic kit lens that comes with the 350D. The Tamron is a much faster lens at f/2.8-4, and as it is designed for full-frame SLR use, the photos you’ll get on a 1.6x crop factor camera are outstanding. The edges are sharp and just as bright as the center. In fact, the images produced with this lens are so sharp that you’ll find yourself reducing the in-camera sharpening for portraiture. Additionally, my photos show great contrast and need very little–if any–post processing.

    I do have a few complaints about this lens. First, the lens hood’s diameter is enormous (over 4″), and I wish there were a smaller hood for 1.6x crop factor camera use. Second, like all Tamron lenses that I have encountered, the manual focus ring moves during autofocus. Third, the focus should be faster and much quieter. However, in light of all the positive aspects going for this lens these are minor issues.

    Reviewers on other websites have given this lens outstanding marks, and it was only after careful research that I decided on purchasing it. I was then off to Thailand where this lens truly proved its worth.
    Rating: 4 / 5

  2. J. Chen says:

    This is about the same range of the Canon 17-40mm F/4L lens and offer equivalent and sometimes superior optical quality and it’s F/2.8 at the wide end. The lens is super sharp and very contrasty, with fast auto-focusing and a good feel on the focusing ring. The best part is this fast and optical superb lens is about half of price of the Canon 17-40mm lens. A true steal. Can’t say enough good things about it. I am posting some sample pictures to show how good the image quality is, too bad the image size can’t be bigger because the sharpness from this lens is truly amazing.

    Rating: 5 / 5

  3. Dennis says:

    If you have read my review for the Canon i9900 you know that I shoot for Federal Law Enforcement and the military, with them I shoot prime OEM lens not third party lens…

    However I cannot personally afford OEM lens so I shoot third party, this Tamron lens is by far the best third party lens I have ever used. It is built very sturdy, not flimsy feeling as third party lenses can feel. It is very sharp, and the outer frame distortion is very low. The Bokeh(circles of confusion) are very nice as well. I think this is worhty in anyones camera bag!

    Rating: 5 / 5

  4. Newlpost says:

    Wide angle lenses have got to be the love-hate lens in any high end camera collection. You are always giving up something. Zooms especially engender frustration as they are least able to tease away the annoying reality of wide angle problems.

    Except in a very high end models, the sensors don’t see the full 1:1 range, so any lens tends to be somewhat telephoto (zoomed in). So now a wide angle lens , zoomed in a bit by that geometry, may stand in to serve as a more standard viewing lens to offset that inherent zoom (from the digital sensor). In that case, variable zooming sure would be nice to have – but not if wide angle optical problems come with it.

    So go totally broke (a lens over $1500) or put up with some form of nasty edge lighting problems, distortion, color shift etc. One brand of wide angle – a well known brand – has a great potential version with great sounding specs, but gets it right on maybe half (huge problem with bad manufacture). Nope. Crap shoot.

    This brand’s version, Tamron, is rock solid, inexpensive for the level of image quality, and can serve as the default lens to leave on your digital SLR. It’s that good. Whatever they did to make this lens, you are not aware of seeing “wide angleness” when viewing the images.

    And yes you could go wider in angle with other choices, maybe buy the Russian fisheye for really extreme purposes. That’s not an alternative for this lens, especially on a 1.6 conversion as with most digital backs. The one reviewed here, got a good work out on a Canon Rebel, given as a gift to a professional photographer whose images with it are just wonderful.

    Now I want one for me.
    Rating: 5 / 5

  5. Tezza says:

    I bought the Tamron 17-35 for my Canon 20D, to compliment the Tamron 28-75 XR DI which I liked a lot.

    The 17-35 range is definitely wide angle, and not much use beyond that. The lens is great for indoors shooting, and outdoor shots where you want to get in close with your subject or your looking for some wide panoramas.

    Right out of the box, I started taking shots that seem reminiscent of some National Geographic indoor/people shots. Tthis lens will give you shots and a perspective that only professionals have the luxury of.

    The lens is definitely sharp with good contrast. It’s nice to have F2.8 at 17mm. Very interesting to watch the max aperture change to F4 in what seems to be a fairly short zoom range.

    The lens surface is somewhat bulbous and almost sticks out as far as the edge of the lens, which makes me wonder if it will be easy to get scratched. Somehow a UV filter doesn’t seem like the answer.

    I haven’t had a problem with flare but then I know how to steer backlit shots.

    Build quality is very good, up to the usual Tamron high standards.

    For some reason I rated the lens at 4 stars, whereas I rated the Tamron 28-75 at 5 stars (see my other reviews).

    I’m not sure why I rated the lens lower than the 28-75, but maybe it just speaks to the usefulness of the lens.

    The 17-35 is not the lens your likely to have attached to your camera most of the time. Certainly a 28-75 is more practical.

    But, for the price, it is definitely a lens that can have its applications, and separate some of your shots from the rest of the crowd.

    I would recommend this lens as a wide angle, for sure. Given the price and build quality, its a very good value.
    Rating: 4 / 5

Post a Review

Amazon, the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.