Canon 17-40 a little long in the tooth?

siejones

siejones

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,547
Edit My Images
No
I have been battling to make decision for ages on which standard zoom to get to replace my kit lens on my 350D.

After allot of research/reviews and forum chatter I have managed to get it down to 2 lenses that are Within the price range I am prepared to pay. I realise there are 2 other lenses to consider that are up to the IQ standards of the two I mention below being the Canon 16-35 and the Canon 17-55 2.8 but both these are in another price league that is above a beyond my boundaries.

The said lenses I cam considering are:

- Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (£300)
- Canon 17-40L (£550-600)

Alot of people are affectionate about the 17-40 and many say it has great sharpness/contrast/colour (many of these articles go back a few years) and I think until the Tamron 17-50 came along it ruled the roost.

Talking about optics alone from what I have read the Tamron beats the Canon. The MTF resolution figures are better from edge to edge. It is sharper through out and is just as contrasty with good colour representation. In fact I have read in one review that maybe the 17-40's resolution will be out done in the near future with high megapixel sensors.

I want to use the lens mainly for landscape work and I feel in this area the sharpness and resolution are of the utmost importance. I do not make the argument of the Tamrons larger aperture because I will most likely be stopping down to F8-F11 anyway. So I kind of take that out of the equation.

I know...I know the canon has better/quieter focus and better build quality but these only contribute to robustness and a more luxurious feel to the lens. It has no impact on image quality and isn't this the most important thing? I don't want to pay £300 pound (twice the price of Tamron) more for just these qualities. After all drop a lens a few feet and none of them would probably survive without being damaged in some way. With the exception of professional journalists and the like we all treat our lenses with care because we know better and want to care for our expensive investment.

The canon also is FF compatible but if you do go FF then it becomes a super wide angle only and you still have to buy another lens cover the range this lens no longer caters for. So you are not really any better off and just as you would have to sell your crop only lens you would probably be selling this to finance your new lens. On top of this I have read a few stories that the extreme edges of the lens that a FF would use start to get softer to the point of bad IQ.

So if FF compatibility is not that important then maybe crop SLR users should take advantage of these cheaper crop only lenses. It seems they can be manufactured a lot cheaper and matching if not beating the optics of the FF big boy lenses. Considering the Tamron and it's performance are we seeing a so
called "next generation" of quality optics just for crop cameras. With the Tokina 16-50 on the horizon and Sigma reintroducing the 18-50 2.8 EX with a macro version that is said to have improved optics. Is it possible these also will be 17-40 betters for probably half the cost.

Don't get me wrong I am not here to slag off the canon. Far from it. In fact I have one on order with Jessops right now but I am on the brink of canceling it after serious consideration. I do want your opinions on the points I have made. Am I wrong? Have I missed something here?
 
If you can find a way (ie shops with no-quibble "money back guarantee" return policies) to test both lenses in a real-world scenario for a day or two then you should. It's the only way to know you made the right choice. Otherwise all you'll be able to do is hope/suspect you made the right choice.
 
Nice to see you doing your research. :D

Tamron lenses have a good reputation. There's no point in me offering an opinion on a direct comparison with the 17-40L as I've no experience of the Tamron, other than having heard one and it was extremely noisy in AF.

I did however have a Canon 17-85 EF-S which is optimised for digital cameras, and I was extremely pleased with it. The only reason I sold it was it wasn't compatible with my 1DMk2n, but before I sold it I did a direct test against the 17-40L, which was sharper at the edges, had less barrel distortion, and better colour rendition. The lens is also weather sealed, which of course only matters if you have a 1 series body or intend to get one.

The 17-40L also still easily comands at least £400 second hand should you choose to sell. More importantly I think you'll find a small army of users here who are very happy with the 17-40L having used it in real world situations.:)
 
Having just taken a look at the MTF resolution figures for both lenses on Photozone.de I must say I'm very impressed with the way the Tamron handles. It definitely seems to outperform the 17-40L (or any other lens in the class, even the 16-35L and 17-55 IS) on paper.

It does say that the Tamron suffers from field curvature (a non-flat focal plane) so if you plan to take pictures of walls (or anything else flat) at wide apertures you could be in trouble. Also the Chromatic Aberrations are slightly worse, but not by much.
 
According to one of the price lists I've seen from Kerso he was selling the Canon 17-40 f4 L for £420.
 
Unfortunatly there are no shops near me that stock either lens so no good to test :(

I am a little worried of buying such an expensive and sensitve item from Ebay. I see that many of you seem to trust this Kerso seller but how does he deal with returns? Would he be happy to swap out a bad copy?.

I actually sent him a message on Ebay asking these quesitons and he never replyed. Kind of scared me off.
 
Why dont you try contacting him here: kerso1123@msn.com

Hes always been very helpful and forthcoming :thumbs:
 
Great research sie, and you certainly sold the Tamron on me, but being a Nikon user I was never going to go for the Cannon anyway. :)

I do currently have a Tameron lens, as you can see from my signature below, and must say I'm very happy with it.
 
I had to make this decision last week, and i ended up choosing the Tamron.

There were a few reasons why i chose the Tamron over the Canon, the main one being the price. It's a LOT cheaper, nearly half the price. For nearly double the price, i didn't really see what the Canon had to offer over the Tamron?

With the release of the Tamron now, I can’t really see any reason why you’d want to buy the 17-40 L over the 17-50 F/2.8 unless you’re on a full frame sensor. The Tamron has a maximum aperture of F/2.8, whilst the Canon’s is F/4. The Tamron stopped down to F/4 is much sharper than the Canon wide open at F/4, and things just keep getting sharper with the Tamron the more you stop it down. Pretty much all the way it’s sharper than the 17-40 L. It’s also got really nice build quality for its price, sure enough it’s not L quality, but it’s just as good. The lens hood you get with the Tamron is also a lot better than the Canons as it actually does something ;)

The ONLY downside I could see to getting the Tamron over the Canon really is the fact that the focus isn’t as fast and is noisy, but otherwise it’s a better lens in pretty much every aspect.

I’ve also taken one of the sharpest photos I’ve ever seen from a zoom with my Tamron, I’ll post up a 100% crop when I get home from college.
 
Well, today i have sent a payment to Kerso for the 17-40L :thumbs:

Cost from Kerso was 415 + 10pp.

Huge thanks to Glen from the forum, i got my hands on the £70 rebate he had... so its going to cost me £355 :D

Now compare that to 4 weeks ago when i almost went to Jessops and got it - £555 :eek:
 
The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 seems to be the popular choice at the moment. If you are happy with the focus noise then go for it :)

One thing I would like to see more of in a lens test is comparisons of actual images. Looking at a graph and comparing MTF numbers is all well and good but it would be more useful knowing how they actually perform 'out in the field'.
It’s a bit like testing graphics cards in 3D Mark vs actual game performance - There have been many occasions where a card/setup has scored higher in 3DMark than it's actual in game performance.

I'm not saying the Tamron isn't sharp, it’s just a general comment :)
 
rico83 said:
Well, today i have sent a payment to Kerso for the 17-40L :thumbs:

Cost from Kerso was 415 + 10pp.

Huge thanks to Glen from the forum, i got my hands on the £70 rebate he had... so its going to cost me £355 :D
Click to expand...


Which is less than i paid for my used one! I've got a good one though so I'll not lose sleep over the price :)
 
Just for interest.

Heres is a smiple page a setup with pictures of the same location shot with the same aperture from both cameras and both extremes of there focal lengths.

http://www.ukmountains.com/pics/compare.html
 
Something seems wrong with the scale in those pictures. The size of the hotels on screen does not compare at full size on the two 17mm shots and the 40 and 50 seem too different also.

There is plenty of detail in the Tamron shots though.
 
Is a shame the person doing the testing of those shots didnt use a tripod, they simply are not the same shot, so not great as a comparison.

Tamron does seem to resolve the images ok, Canon seems warmer to me though, so may be imagining it ! lol
 
To take this off thread slightly, for those of you with FF sensors is the EF16-35 that much better than the EF17-40 comparing the price difference?.
 
Point worth noting here when comparing the MTF

The tamron is a digital only lens, the canon isn't.

So real world on your camera the edge of the frame will be pretty close to the edge of the Tamron, but witll still be a way off the edge on the Canon.

The thing to ask yourself is how important is build quality to you?
 
Thanks for the link. :thumbs: It looks like a 17-40 then, not that I could really afford a 16-35 anyway.
 
rico83 said:
Well, today i have sent a payment to Kerso for the 17-40L :thumbs:

Cost from Kerso was 415 + 10pp.

Huge thanks to Glen from the forum, i got my hands on the £70 rebate he had... so its going to cost me £355 :D

Now compare that to 4 weeks ago when i almost went to Jessops and got it - £555 :eek:
Click to expand...

Glad to help! :wave:
 
I do not make the argument of the Tamrons larger aperture because I will most likely be stopping down to F8-F11 anyway.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but you'll get a veiwfinder twice as bright with the Tamron. Something that can be worth loads if you're out on a hillside framing up a shot just before dawn, or any other low light situations.

On another note, I had a chance to have a play with the 16-35L the other week and it didn't really feel very differnt to my 17-40, or look all that different on the shots either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top