This is the original Tamron lens cap, so, it fits very well on my Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 Very well build.

I bought this lens after contemplating buying the new 16-35 2.8. I had the money to buy the more expensive lens but I didn't and here is why. I was told by an aquaintance who test for Canon that the 17-40 f 4.0 is over all sharper and has less distortion than the new 16-35 f 2.8 (as of Aug 15 2007). I have heard this from other photographers as well. Also although it isn't an f 2.8 as like the 16-35 it does have a bit more range and I have found the focusing is pretty fast regardless. I think it is the best $700 I ever spent on a piece of camera equipment.

Great for my Sony a6300 in tight spaces. Gets the job done and didn’t cost too much

The camera is a beauty! Especially paired with the 16-35 f/2.8 version iii (The only lens I have right now). I just switched over from the sony a6300 and the quality/ease-of-use is night and day! If you are recording video in 4k make sure you get a FAST memory card that can handle the high bitrate on this camera. I recommend anything with at least 300 MB/s with v90 (Lexar 2000x or the TOUGH Sony G series cards). I shoot music videos and do youtube sit-downs, being able to shoot 4k with the high bitrates is nice!

As mentioned by Joby on their YouTube video, I bought the Joby 1K for my Sony a6300 with kit lens. It does the work, but it feels like the camera is heavier to handle.

No, it's not a $1000+ DSLR, but for $90 (as of this review), the quality of this camera comes admirably close for way less money.I have both versions of this camera (the 5-50mm, and this 2.8-12mm one), and for the price, they're both in a league of their own as far as camera quality goes. Cheap webcams under $40 are a dime a dozen, some of them are even 4k but there is a reason they're that cheap. The quality usually isn't that great with blown out, inaccurate colors, poor focus, and/or blocky pixelation in dark colors or just in general... In addition to all of that, the number of camera settings that are unlocked and adjustable (within OBS or other software) are usually pretty limited. These cameras though, yes they're more expensive, but they're walking the line between "webcam" and "DSLR" for an extremely reasonable price, and you have all settings unlocked and adjustable.The 5-50mm version will be a narrower FOV but have more zoom/close-up range, and this 2.8-12mm will have a wider FOV. What does this mean? Well, if you're gonna be placing this camera within 2ft of your face, you will probably want the 2.8-12mm version because the 5-50mm will likely be too much of a closeup at that distance. It all comes down to personal preference but I'd say beyond 2ft distance, the 5-50mm camera can obtain a solid chest-up shot.The 5-50mm camera will need quite a bit of light to look good. I have two ring lights set up on either side of my desk and they're probably not the brightest but I had to do quite a bit of adjustment of camera settings in OBS (exposure, brightness, contrast, gamma) to get it to look good, even with the iris wide open. The 2.8-12mm however requires less light. I still made adjustments but it was nearly good to go on its own.Overall, these are really solid cameras for the price. True 4k resolution and quality without pixelation. Your co-workers and viewers will notice the difference compared to any other cheapo 4k camera. You will need some sort of stand for it however. I got some bendable gooseneck-style arms to attach to my desk and mount these on, and they work great, but if you're gonna get a small tripod or something, you may want to consider something heftier because these cameras are weighty compared to your average webcam. However you may need to set your tripod up to aim the cam where you want it could be a tipping hazard with the weight so, take that into consideration.

I have the 16-35mm F4, and indeed the extra 2mm help a bit....but as far as IQ I can't say there is much of a difference.If you have already a canon 16-35mm f4, then there is no need to get this one ( I got it because the 16-35 is now under my wife's fingernails)The 15-35 f2.8 it's different story, if indeed you need 2.8, but same applies to the 2.8 EF variant - 1mm difference.In sum, a great lens, way more compact than my 11-24mm, similar performer as the superb EF16-35mm f4, but as a first UWA or replacement from a 17-40 for instanceRecommended

It tried this lens after my 16-35/f2.8 was stolen. It's a great value compared to Canon's other L series lenses. If you don't need the extra speed of the 2.8 lens, I highly recommend it. The only possible con I could come up with is that it is very light compared to the 16-35, which could imply something about its durability, but that's pure conjecture, and I can't subtract a star for that. It could simply be that the 16-35 contains more glass to accomplish the 2.8 aperture.