Unless you're a pro or have spare money it's too expensive for what you get
8 July 2012
Summary: Good image quality Fast focus Good build quality Accurate color, contrast and good sharpness Overall it is a very good lens Heavy and big Inconvenient filter size. Filters are expensive I think it is too expensive for what you get for but I am not a professional and it may be much better on a full frame camera.
Conclusion: This is a well built, good quality lens, but the image sharpness does not compare to the primes. For wide angle work I tend to use the 8-15 L fisheye, the 14 mm 2.8 L, and the 24 1.4L. I thought that this lens might eliminate having to carry both the 14 and the 24. I was wrong. If you are an amateur, you will most likely be thrilled with this lens. It produces acceptable images, and gives you a decent range in one lens.
Pros: well constructed, decent 'all around' lens
Cons: not nearly as sharp as the 14mm 2.8 l or 24 1.4l
Conclusion: This is truly a fast and fantastic lens. I've reviewed the MTF charts beforehand and as compared to its predecessor (Mki) the edge detail is greatly improved. it's lightweight, comfortable to hold and works well in low light. My one and only and biggest gripe is the 82mm filter size that is needed. 82mm is not only the most expensive but also very difficult to find as of 1/31/12. As an example try and find the B&W #110 neutral density 10 stop filter.
Conclusion: I have put together a lens comparison test of the Canon 16 – 35 L II and the Tamron 17 – 35 2.8 – 4.0. I was in the market for quite a while looking for a lens which would satisfy this zoom range. I initially bought the Canon 16-35 2.8 L II, but was disappointed with the results. Not that it was bad, just for the price, it was just that it wasn't great. I was expecting more. So on a whim (had 30 days to return) I decided to try out the Tamron.
Pros: Super fast AF, controlled distortion for an ultra-wide.
Cons: Price.. only decently sharp at 2.8, not great at 35mm
Conclusion: Overall this lens is not bad. I believe Canon should make IS to this lens. So the quality of the photos would be better. Some 20-35mm photos are out of focus or not too sharp. So this lens is still need to make some improvement. One more thing about this lens. It is over price. The photos quality, and performance are not good enough. Plus NO IS.
Summary: Ok folks... I bought this wonderful lens about 12 weeks ago for maybe $1400. I've used it for landscape work and it does a fine job..not great at 16 in terms of sharpness and never great at any length at the corners. I also use a 24mm TS-E and a 17mm TS-E. (and a 35mm 1.4) all of these are better lenses in terms of sharpness...the 24mm TS-E in particular is crazy sharp (and cool).
Fantastic lens. Not perfect, but an incredible complement to the 70-200
21 March 2011
Summary: I've been using this lens for almost 3 years now and is my tried and true walk-around lens. For an ultra wide zoom, I never thought I'd come to love the bokeh it renders when using at 35mm, close focus distances, wide open. The lens also makes incredible 14 point sunstars when you're going for that effect, it's absolutely fantastic! I happen to use this indoors and outdoors for both landscape and street photography.