17-40 f4 L Vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vc

Andy77

Andy77

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,543
Name
andy
Edit My Images
No
Looking to either trade or sell my canon 70-200mm F4 L for either of these.

canon 17-40 F4 L
Tamron 17-50 F2.8 Vc

Which in your opinion is better?

Will be using on a 40d, will the 17-40 still be wide enough for landscapes/walkabout ect as on the 40d at the 17mm end will become 27mm?

Thanks
 
The 17-40 is designed to be a UWA on a full-frame body, but, due to it's focal length, has a second life as a walkaround lens on a crop. 17mm on a crop is definitely a wide angle of sorts, which will be good for landscapes, but the 40 end is a limiting reach, and the maximum f/4 aperture limits you to outdoors/well lit/flashlit conditions. The Tamron has the benefit of VC too, which can give you those extra few stops in low light if needed.

If you're looking for a general use lens, I'd go for the Tamron out of the two.
 
I traded my 17-40mm just after using it for a week. I'm not sure if it was just my copy but the IQ does not give me a wow factor. If you are not planning to upgrade to fullframe, the tamron seems to be a better bet. Or you can just spend a few more pennies and get the 17-55mm.
 
I had a Tamron 17-50 (none VC) when I had my 40D and ultimately found the missing 5mm at the long end annoying and ended up trading up to the 17-55.

In my view, the 17-40 L would be even more compromised as a GP lens on crop. As others have said it is best at home as an UWA on FF.

Save a bit more and get the EF-S 17-55 IS. If you get the Tammy you'll always be wishing you had the 17-55. I know I was.
 
Interesting.

For me 5mm at the wide end makes a hellofalot of difference but 5mm on the long end of a 17-50mm? I wouldn't notice.
 
surely the canon L series is by far a better option in terms of quality than a tamron... thinking for myself to be honest as i'm on full frame and looking for a wide angle len for a 5d... would the tamron be worth considering or is it a crop sensor only lens?
 
It's a small sensor lens.

I've only tried a 17-40mm once and I wasn't impressed. I personally think that the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a better lens and that the extra 10mm makes a difference on APS-C. As I said, I'm not so sure that an extra 5mm on the 50mm end would matter that much to me but 10mm over 40mm does.

It's just MVHO, but I personally don't think that the 17-40mm f4 makes sense as a walk around lens on APS-C when there are the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and Canon's own 17-55mm f2.8 to choose from, all well regarded lenses. For me, the 17-40 only makes sense as a FF lens, unless you simply must have an L lens.

I bought the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8.

There are 17-40mm v 17-50mm reviews on the net and from what I remember the general consensus is that the Tamron offers the better IQ.
 
I haven't had my tamron 17-50mm (non VC) very long, but early signs a very good! Can't fault it for the money....:thumbs:
 
markelliot said:
i'm on full frame and looking for a wide angle len for a 5d
Click to expand...

I love my 17-40! Sorry I can't be technical like some of the other members... I just like it, it seems sharp, and at least I now know that any failings in my pics are down to me and not inferior equipment.
 
Well I have been using the 17-40 for years on cropped sensor cameras.... and never had any issues with mine.... I don't find it limiting at all... and it compliments my 70-200F4 IS perfectly....
 
68lbs said:
I love my 17-40! Sorry I can't be technical like some of the other members... I just like it, it seems sharp, and at least I now know that any failings in my pics are down to me and not inferior equipment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's a different lens on a 5D; the OP is talking about using it on a crop-sensor body.
 
saladin said:
Well I have been using the 17-40 for years on cropped sensor cameras.... and never had any issues with mine.... I don't find it limiting at all... and it compliments my 70-200F4 IS perfectly....
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's nice, but the lack of IS and the max ap of f/4 would put me right off it as a general use lens; I find I'm often wider than f/4 with shutter speeds below the recommended minimum per focal length with my 17-55.
 
saladin said:
Well I have been using the 17-40 for years on cropped sensor cameras.... and never had any issues with mine.... I don't find it limiting at all... and it compliments my 70-200F4 IS perfectly....
Click to expand...

I have a one and like it on the 5Dmk2, I don't find myself using it very often though. I bought almost by default to replace my old 10-22 when I moved to the 5D. I find myself using the 24-105 and 70-200 for the majority of the time.

As I said, it is only my view about it being too short for a GP on crop (I also found the 17-50 to short too). If it suits your needs that's all that is important.

I still think that the 17-55 is a better (if more expensive) option for crop.
 
PhlangePhace said:
More expensive?

It's only just under twice the price (of the Tammy) :razz:
Click to expand...

Yes, twice the price of the Tammy, not twice the price of the 17-40. The 17-55 is about £120 more than the 17-40.

Having owned both the Tammy and Canon (17-55) though I can honestly say that I found the Canon a whole lot better than the Tammy. The AF was more consistent and it didn't hunt in low light like the Tammy. The Canon didn't sound like an air-tool when focusing either. Plus I found the lack of full time manual focus on the Tamron to be an issue.

Don't get me wrong, the Tamron is a damn good lens for the money and my copy was as sharp as a razor. It served its purpose when funds were limited but as soon as I could I went for the Canon.
 
Your trying to compare a top of the range L lens with a budget mid-ish-range lens.

It's like comparing a a Ford Focus to a Bentley.
(Incidentally I own a Ford Focus :D )

I've got a 17-40mm on the way, and not used the Tamron, but I can assure you the Canon will be many times better.

And yes, I am an L whore.
Simply because they are the best lens you can buy FOR A CANON BODY.
 
Golly, that's brave talk when you haven't even tried the Tamron :) I've tried both and so have on line reviewers.

As for Canon L lenses being the best you can buy for a Canon body, I suspect that some other manufacturers may not agree :)
 
woof woof said:
Golly, that's brave talk when you haven't even tried the Tamron :) I've tried both and so have on line reviewers.

As for Canon L lenses being the best you can buy for a Canon body, I suspect that some other manufacturers may not agree :)
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I think I may have opened a can of worms by my last comment :D

Ok, perhaps I wasn't being fair. I haven't tried the Tamron, so maybe I was talking out of my arse. But I've used a number of other lenses, and they never come close to an 'L'.
 
Nifkin said:
Yeah, but it's a different lens on a 5D; the OP is talking about using it on a crop-sensor body.
Click to expand...

Indeed... that's why I quoted MarkElliot who was considering it for a 5D MkI :)
 
68lbs said:
Indeed... that's why I quoted MarkElliot who was considering it for a 5D MkI :)
Click to expand...

Ah I see; the pair of you hijacking the thread, eh? :p
 
I had a 17-40L for years on all kinds of body's and it is a superb lens.
 
Andy77 said:
Will be using on a 40d, will the 17-40 still be wide enough for landscapes/walkabout ect as on the 40d at the 17mm end will become 27mm?
Click to expand...

Hello Andy, I use the 17-40L on a 400D and I love it. It's the widest lens I own and I have invested in a BW 77mm MRC Circular Polariser Filter, which compliments this lens very nicely. I very rarely use a tripod and I don't really miss Image Stabilisation, although it would probably save some of my shots if it had this function.

I have also used this as a general purpose lens and I find to be of a high quality.

This is shot at the wide end (on 400D):
IMG_6121-Edit.jpg
 
morbidorbits said:
Hello Andy, I use the 17-40L on a 400D and I love it. It's the widest lens I own and I have invested in a BW 77mm MRC Circular Polariser Filter, which compliments this lens very nicely. I very rarely use a tripod and I don't really miss Image Stabilisation, although it would probably save some of my shots if it had this function.

I have also used this as a general purpose lens and I find to be of a high quality.

This is shot at the wide end (on 400D):
IMG_6121-Edit.jpg
Click to expand...

Dont fancy swapping it for a week against my canon 70-200mm f4 L, as im off to disneyland and dont have walkabout....:D
 
thanks 68lbs... that was all I wanted to know... and OP sorry for the hijack... ill get back into hiding now!
 
Andy77 said:
Dont fancy swapping it for a week against my canon 70-200mm f4 L, as im off to disneyland and dont have walkabout....:D
Click to expand...

I would miss it too much! There are some lens rental's available somewhere but might be quite pricey :(
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
I bought almost by default to replace my old 10-22 when I moved to the 5D. I find myself using the 24-105 and 70-200 for the majority of the time.

As I said, it is only my view about it being too short for a GP on crop (I also found the 17-50 to short too). If it suits your needs that's all that is important.

I still think that the 17-55 is a better (if more expensive) option for crop.
Click to expand...


I Have just done the same, sold the 10-22mm and got the 17-40, well i will have it as of monday.

Seen many good images with this lens. As for it being on a crop body - way to short for me.

I had a sigma 17-70 after i found i hated the kit lens. Then split that to the 24-70mm and the 10-22mm

the sigma is a damn fine lens and got many good shots from it. Its just the 2.8-4.5 aperture that let it down. It now comes with sigmas OS so should be a worthy contender too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top