Tamron SP AF Aspherical Di LD [IF] 17-35mm F / 2.8-4 A05. Review from the reader Radozhiva

View of the Tamron SP AF Aspherical Di LD [IF] 17-35mm F / 2.8-4 A05 lens, examples of photos from it, and the review itself specifically for Radozhiva, prepared Pavel Tikhiy.

Tamron SP AF Aspherical Di LD [IF] 17-35mm F / 2.8-4 A05

Tamron SP AF Aspherical Di LD [IF] 17-35mm F / 2.8-4 A05

The Tamron SP AF 17-35mm F / 2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical [IF] is a professional super wide-angle autofocus zoom lens manufactured for various systems, this review presents a model for NIKON.

Focal length - 17mm-35mm
Maximum Aperture - F2.8-F4
Minimum Aperture - F22-F32
Petals in the diaphragm - 7
MDF - 30cm.
Filter diameter - 77mm.
Lens weight - 440g. (!)

SP (Super Performance) in the title indicates that the lens belongs to the professional line.
Di - Indicates that the lens will perform well both at cropped and full frame.
LD - (Low Dispersion) - lens using elements made of low dispersion glass (to suppress chromatic aberration).
IF - (Internal Focus) - The lens has internal focusing, which means that it will work with light filters without problems.

The optical scheme includes 14 elements, of which 1 LD (low dispersion) and 3 AD (aspherical) glasses, in fact, this means that the level of chromatic aberration is minimized.

Made in Japan. The lens is assembled very solidly, metal and glass - nothing more. No backlashes, elastic bands are not stretched, the movement of the rings is VERY smooth. The lens is very light and easy to handle. The aperture control ring is located close to the camera mount and is automatically locked by the button at F / 22. The lens has a focusing distance scale in meters and feet. The lens comes with a hood that you can put on back to front and use the lens without any problems.

The lens’s focusing is fast, with sufficient lighting and even when the sun focuses tenaciously in the frame, it focuses not so confidently in the dark, but everything is within normal limits. The lens does not have a focus motor and will only work on cameras with a built-in focus motor.

The image quality is good, the lens shows itself very well in side light, but all the same, if you push the sun into the frame, then the glare is ensured, HA practically absent. Detailing is not bad with F / 2.8, but only in the center, the edges still sag significantly and especially in the corners, even at covered apertures and at 17mm focal length. Distortion is common for this kind of lens and easily corrects during post-processing.

Sources with Nikon D600 you can see here.

My experience

For the landscape, I would not get this lens because of dubious sharpness. Almost every day I use this lens for shooting people indoors (children's parties, bride redemption, banquet), for this purpose it is the best suited. I really like that it is lightweight and reliable (unlike my previous Tamron AF 17-50mm f / 2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] VC, which was pouring before our eyes, from the store). I also compared it to Nikon 17-35mm f / 2.8D ED AF-S SWM IF NikkorNikon pulls on the edges the same way, the zoom ring travel was very tight (time takes its toll), and much harder. Nikonn is not so lathery around the edges and aperture f / 2.8, they did not convince me to give him $ 750 !. And in the end, in addition to tamron, I took Nikon 28mm f / 1.8GN AF-S Nikkor for $ 310.

PS Many thanks to Arkady for his project, success and prosperity!

You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.

Add a comment:



Comments: 41, on the subject: Tamron SP AF Aspherical Di LD [IF] 17-35mm F / 2.8-4 A05. Review from the reader Radozhiva

  • Victor

    Is 13-35 super wide angle?

    • Victor


      • Oleg

        It is for full-length cameras. There are simply examples for both the full frame of the d600 and the crop of d90. At a full frame of 17mm, an uniquely ultra-wide angle

  • Serg57

    viewing angles
    104 ° - 62 ° FF

  • Max

    Photos are terrible in color and composition. Because of this, I will never buy this lens;)

    • Obama

      I can still understand about colors. But complaints about the composition ...
      "I (that guy) have crooked hands so this lens is not for me."

    • Artem

      The neighbor at Tayota has a dented door. Because of this, I will never buy such a car!
      That's about how it sounds)))

    • Vyshgorod

      I agree ... The lens is "so-so", even for nothing would not interest ...: (((((

    • anonym

      The usual “creativity” of an ordinary “wedding photographer”.
      The main thing is that the elastic bands are not stretched! :)

      • Valery A.

        So do good - the person showed the lens, shared his impressions, and he was criticized in a splash. Raikin: "softer, thinner and more delicate."

  • anonym

    Elastic bands are not stretched! Like an ad from OLX.

  • Eugene o

    Brand Tamron low contrast.

    By the way, in the photo Crimea?

    • anonym


  • anonym


  • Serg57

    Author! Thanks for the interesting review. I have an old Sigma 17-35 / 2.8-4 (screwdriver) with the same weight! But the filter is 82 mm. I use it for evening shooting of illuminated streets in cities. Other tasks can also be solved. But the evening city for this lens. I have a Nikkor 17-35 / 2.8 for comparison. However, I prefer Sigma.
    I will try to find your Tamron and compare.

    • Pavel Tikhiy

      Yes, health, write a review on your own, I am very interested to compare =)

  • Serg57

    I'll add more.
    Like you, I also took an add-on, but Nikkor 24 / 1.8 is super quality.

  • Peter Sh.

    A very good lens in my opinion. I did not notice any “soap”. Contrast, sharpness and color are fine. I looked at its price. very good price. The lens will cost twice as much a little better.

    It seems that not everyone understands what real “soap” and the lack of contrast are.
    From here, around and around completely unnecessary experiences and torment.
    And all such experiences with the most negative images affect creativity.

    Understand that no one is looking at the edges of a photograph, much less corners.
    No one really cares about all this garbage. People look at the composition, not at the corners.

    • Serg57

      As a user of Sigma 17-35 / 2.8-4 and Nikkor 17-35 / 2.8 :) :) :)
      totally agree with you

      • Peter Sh.

        Thank you))

        Returning to soap, distortion, and everything else. Here is an example. Found, finally.
        Personally, I really like this photo. Although there is no sharpness, nothing:

    • Alexey

      Damn, I have soap on the contrary, especially around the edges. Yesterday I sat and clicked on the room and came to the conclusion that holes 2.8, 4, 5.6 are smaller on it than 8 or 10. At 8, it’s generally some kind of tin, and the effect of doubling and soft is fierce around the edges, especially on the left. Bought on Avito.

  • Yaroslav

    Guys, hello. I can't decide to buy a shirik ... Most of all I take pictures of landscapes and is often needed for filming weddings and other family celebrations ..
    Question: Tokina 17-35 4.0 or Tamron 17-35 2.8-4.0?
    Thank you very much!

  • Dancer

    Take Tamron. For their own - very small, money, for an ultra-wide angle, just a luxurious lens. You don't need to trust all the testers. And (important) filter - 77

    • Yaroslav

      Thanks for the tip. Yes, the filter size is really important ..

  • kaktyC

    at one time I had at the same time sigma 17-35 2.8-4 \\\ tokina 20-35 2.8 \\\ tamron 17-35 2.8 \\\
    sigma 15-30 3.5-sigma 15-30 3.5
    so in the first place in sharpness by a significant margin is a tamron, already with an open diaphragm
    on the second sigma 15-30

  • anonym


  • anonym

    Or Areda?

  • Pavel Tikhiy

    I sell this glass, to whom it is interesting, write vk.com/paveltihii

  • Sergei

    This Tamron also caught fire after a long selection and revision of NEF sources with a good pile of glasses: Nikkor 20-35 2.8d, Tamron SP AF 17-35 2.8-4, Tokina 20-35mm 2.8, Sigma 15-30 mm 3.5-4.5, Samyang 14mm 2.8, Sigma 20mm F1.8 and Sigma 17-35 f / 2.8-4.0.
    But for used Tamron 17-35 at the OLH they are asking for almost $ 400, so far it is unprofitable for me, especially in light of the purchase of the third glass in a month (and the birth of the second child). I saw on the OLH Sigma 17-35 mm f / 2.8-4 EX Aspherical for 140 cu and bought (despite the lack of full reviews). After five days with Sigma, I will share my opinion, maybe it will be useful to someone:
    "A little" upset:
    - 17mm vignette (easily corrected with one slider in ViewNX or Lightroom);
    - in modes “A” and “S” it underexposes, both with auto ISO, and with manual, driving accordingly shutter speed / aperture “in the wrong direction” (with full manual control, of course, these problems are not);
    - DO NOT touch the focusing ring in auto mode, but you really want to twist it, darling, like on Nikkors;
    - it is not convenient to close the front cover with a hood.
    "A little" pleased:
    - excellent assembly and, in general, excellent condition of a lens that is no longer young;
    - decent, as for me, sharpness and contrast throughout the entire focal range (although in ViewNX I add sharpness +2 and contrast +5);
    - fast focusing both outdoors during the day and indoors in the evening;
    - focusing misses are no more than on my Nikkor 50mm 1.8G and Tamron 70-300 4-5.6mm VC;
    - the sun from the side or directly into the lens is not a problem.
    So the fears were dispelled, the cold sweat disappeared, and the lens settled on Nikon while the price difference went to diapers :-)
    Link to the photo in NEF: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qlOR_TZzRISNUVb3BWrG-hioTyP9X7Yx

  • Oleg

    Hello. Here is a quote from the author - “For a landscape, I would not buy this lens because of dubious sharpness. Almost every day I use this lens to photograph people in closed rooms (children's parties, bride price, banquet), for these purposes it suits perfectly ”.
    And in the example photos - only landscapes and animals. And where - filming "people in closed rooms (children's parties, bride price, banquet)" ?.
    If possible - lay out, compare.
    Thank you.

    • Edward

      the point is that there are 17 - objects of the same plan (located at the same distance from the lens) look different - especially noticeable in the city photo - above

      it doesn't matter what you are photographing, if you do it at 17 mm with this lens, you will need to compose the frame so that what you focus on is close to the center, and what is on the sides at a different distance - then everything will be ok

      if you are photographing something that is at the same distance - for example - a wall, a sunset at the sea, a forest and fields, a standard photograph of a school class, etc.
      - it will turn out not very well at 17mm (at any aperture), at 24-35 - the situation will improve

  • Edward

    there is a typo in the review
    "Minimum focal length - 30 cm" - and should be
    "Minimum focusing distance - 30 cm"

    recently acquired such a lens - mixed impressions, but overall positive
    in full frame -
    at 17 - at 2.8 - it is sharp in the center, sharpness decreases at the edges, there is significant distortion
    at 4, 4.5 - sharpness at the edges is getting better, but still not perfect, the main thing - at 4 - unpleasant blur effects disappear

    by 20 - the situation is improving
    24 sharpness throughout the frame is already acceptable at any aperture
    35 sharpness is good on any aperture, almost no distortion

    at 17, 2.8 not sharpness at the edges is also unpleasant because it distorts objects, especially noticeably on white text on a black background, it turns out to be blurry
    by 4 - this effect is no longer there

    focusing is fast, I am glad that the MDF is 30 cm

    overall a good ultra wide-angle full frame, but with a 17mm photo you need to keep in mind its features

    for crop - the features of this lens will not be so significant, but it will no longer be ultra wide-angle, which makes buying it pointless

  • anonym

    Metal and glass, is it metallic?

  • anonym

    Finally! I managed to buy a used one, but in great condition. A great replacement for my 10-20 ff, in terms of price-quality ratio. And filters from 10-20 came up. A worker starting from the open, and on f11 is quite suitable for the landscape. Pleasant bokeh in the open. I do not rejoice at him)

  • Natalie

    Hello! Please tell me, I don’t have a lens hood for this lens, what diameter do I need? I don’t want to make a mistake. Thank you

    • B. R. P.

      Diameter 77 mm. But it’s not the same diameter, it is necessary that the lens hood fits the viewing angle of this lens.

  • Damn

    Link to the originals does not work!

  • Vyacheslav

    The lens accidentally got me a new one in a state the fly did not sit this year. From what I do not understand - focusing is ideal only in LiveView mode (610 Nikon camera). The focusing speed in this mode is fast when there is good light. In normal mode, the normal adjustment in the camera failed. I liked the picture as a whole. The colors are a bit unusual compared to the 45m Tamron. Accum in Life View mode eats very modestly. Video to shoot on this lens is a thrill. Sharpness is good starting from 4,5-5, ideal at 6-7. I shot them almost the entire wedding, all the gut. On the whole, at 35, half-length shots come out well. There is a vignette, but a small one. I recommend the lens.

  • Anatoly

    Good day! Does anyone know where to buy a rubber zoom ring for this lens? Alik is full of rings for other tampons, and specifically this one is not (((in terms of dimensions, the outer diameter is 73mm (with an elastic band), the inner diameter is 69mm (without an elastic band), the width is 24mm. Thanks in advance.

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2022

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2017/03/tamron-sp-af-di-ld-if-17-35mm-f2-8-4-a05/

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2017/03/tamron-sp-af-di-ld-if-17-35mm-f2-8-4-a05/