Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Canon mount
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Canon mount
Description: Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Canon mount lens. Used for less than a year, mint condition, always used with a filter. Glass is flawless, and no scratches on the exterior, hood, or caps. Comes with original box, manual, warranty, both lens caps, hood, Hoya UV and CP filters. This is a sharp copy with no issues and is still covered within Tamron Six Year USA Limited Warranty. I'm selling only because I got a new zoom lens with overlapping focal length range.
Price: $350 picked up, $375 shipped.
Location: Sacramento, CA.
Contact info: forum PM
Additional Info/Specs: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc....html#features
Pictures:
Price: $350 picked up, $375 shipped.
Location: Sacramento, CA.
Contact info: forum PM
Additional Info/Specs: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc....html#features
Pictures:
Thanks Cal! I actually just upgraded to the brick on my 40D... did you mean that your 24-70 is not wide enough?
Trending Topics
The 24-70 is awesome. But in my tiny apartment I have no room to "back up."
In all other cases, it's awesome. 
Thanks for the bump guys, I didn't realize there were so many Nikonians out there on the forum 
Cal, I was debating on whether to go with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS instead, since I was afraid the 24-70 wouldn't be wide enough on a cropped body and too heavy for a walkaround lens. But I got a found a great deal on the 24-70, so I couldn't pass it up. Plus I have the 10-22 for when I need to go wider.
Cal, I was debating on whether to go with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS instead, since I was afraid the 24-70 wouldn't be wide enough on a cropped body and too heavy for a walkaround lens. But I got a found a great deal on the 24-70, so I couldn't pass it up. Plus I have the 10-22 for when I need to go wider.
Last edited by patman530; May 13, 2010 at 08:52 AM.
Thanks for the bump guys, I didn't realize there were so many Nikonians out there on the forum
Cal, I was debating on whether to go with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS instead, since I was afraid the 24-70 wouldn't be wide enough on a cropped body and too heavy for a walkaround lens. But I got a found a great deal on the 24-70, so I couldn't pass it up. Plus I have the 10-22 for when I need to go wider.
Cal, I was debating on whether to go with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS instead, since I was afraid the 24-70 wouldn't be wide enough on a cropped body and too heavy for a walkaround lens. But I got a found a great deal on the 24-70, so I couldn't pass it up. Plus I have the 10-22 for when I need to go wider.
The brick does get heavy after an afternoon of walking around with it, but the results are so worth it. Also having the 10-22, I thought the same thing. But I miss being able to carry around just one lens. I found myself switching between the 10-22 and 24-70 every 10 minutes because I needed the width of the 10-22 or length of the 24-70. Hoping that on a FF the 24-70 will be a perfect compromise.
Bump.
