Canon 17-40 F4 L or Tamron 17-50 F2.8 VC?

S

SkyQPic

Suspended / Banned
Messages
51
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

(Looking for a lens for my canon 50D. At first 17-50 F2.8 VC was my choice but later on the 17-40L was recommended by my friend.

The price difference is about 200 pounds...

Thanks!)

Since a lot of you told me that the VC version is not so useful...so I changed the candidates to tamron 17-50 F2.8 (NON-VC) and the canon 17-40 F4 L.

The 17-40L costs more than 600pounds and the 17-50 F2.8 NON-VC costs 330pounds...

So if the optical quality (and also mechanical quality) of the 17-40L is worth the 330 pounds difference, I will get it...

So any suggestions? or if you guys may suggest other lenses no more than the price of the 17-40L.

Thanks very much!
 
The 17-40L is a no brainer, the Tamron doesn't even come close.
Getting a half decent quality lens from Tamron too is a gamble.
 
Lightstalker said:
The 17-40L is a no brainer, the Tamron doesn't even come close.
Getting a half decent quality lens from Tamron too is a gamble.
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't a no brainer. They're different things. The 17-40L is supposed to be an UWA for a FF camera and is slow. The Tamron (although the non-VC version is way better) is a fast wide angle. different beasts. The real alternative is the 17-55 is.
 
I love my Tamron 17-50mm non-VC but if you're ever thinking about the switch to full frame then the 17-40 would be my choice.

The Tamron has the upper hand with the VC and 2.8 throughout the range.
 
The23rdman said:
Of course it isn't a no brainer. They're different things. The 17-40L is supposed to be an UWA for a FF camera and is slow. The Tamron (although the non-VC version is way better) is a fast wide angle. different beasts. The real alternative is the 17-55 is.
Click to expand...

Yes but wide open the Tamron has shoddy corner sharpness and slightly more CA.
If your buying this lens for Landscape or Architecture as most do, then you may never see the f/2.8 end of it. I rarely see below 4.5 on my 17-35 f/2.8L.
 
Lightstalker said:
The 17-40L is a no brainer, the Tamron doesn't even come close.
Getting a half decent quality lens from Tamron too is a gamble.
Click to expand...

Total nonsense.

I've used both for a considerable time now (my Tammy is the non-VC) and although the 17-40mm really endeared itself to me on 10D/20D/30D and 40D bodies (because it's IQ is very high and it's as tough as old boots), the Tamron is optically better I feel, and for the money represents a better investment as a general/walkabout lens on a crop body. The faster aperture is very useful and although the Canon probably focusses a tad faster, on a wide-angle the AF usually isn't that stretched.

I agree that for architecture and other tripodded work, then the max aperture means diddly squatt, but seeing as he's not said he is, we presume he's buying for general snap shooting so the Tamron wins hands down every time, especially when your budget is £200, like the OP's is....
 
Lightstalker said:
Yes but wide open the Tamron has shoddy corner sharpness and slightly more CA.
If your buying this lens for Landscape or Architecture as most do, then you may never see the f/2.8 end of it. I rarely see below 4.5 on my 17-35 f/2.8L.
Click to expand...

He's using a 50D. That's why I said it's not even a comparison on a crop.
 
I would not buy the Tamron VC- seems to be too much sample variation at best and at worst the introduction of the anti-vibration mechanism has compromised the optical clarity.

The non-VC is the better option and at these focal lengths, stabilisation is over-rated anyway.
 
Dr_O said:
I would not buy the Tamron VC- seems to be too much sample variation at best and at worst the introduction of the anti-vibration mechanism has compromised the optical clarity.

The non-VC is the better option and at these focal lengths, stabilisation is over-rated anyway.
Click to expand...

Agree completely.
 
The 17-40L costs more than 600pounds and the 17-50 F.28 NON-VC costs 330pounds...
 
I've only tried the 17-40mm f4 in a shop and I came out with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8.

For me the extra 10mm probably doesn't matter but the constant f2.8 does and as far as I remember the Tamron will focus closer too. I don't think I've read a comparison on the net that says that the 17-40 is optically better than the Tamron.
 
Tamron VC has 'issues'. 17-40L is a brilliant super-wide on full frame, distinctly average on a cropper. 17-55 2.8 IS is the one - save up or get a nice used one for £600. It's miles better than anything else.
 
I owned both. Whilst I ended up moving to the 17-40 because I'd gone FF (which might be of consideration to you, as you can't use the 17-50 Tammy on one), I found that the AF was better, it is weathersealed (which was useful for me at Niagara) and I simply found the resultant photos to be more consistently brilliant.
Unfortunately I sold my 17-40 when I bought a 24-105. Have to say that I prefered the shots that came from the 17-40. If you can afford it, do it.
 
SkyQPic said:
Hi,

(Looking for a lens for my canon 50D. At first 17-50 F2.8 VC was my choice but later on the 17-40L was recommended by my friend.

The price difference is about 200 pounds...

Thanks!)

Since a lot of you told me that the VC version is not so useful...so I changed the candidates to tamron 17-50 F2.8 (NON-VC) and the canon 17-40 F4 L.

The 17-40L costs more than 600pounds and the 17-50 F2.8 NON-VC costs 330pounds...

So if the optical quality (and also mechanical quality) of the 17-40L is worth the 330 pounds difference, I will get it...

So any suggestions? or if you guys may suggest other lenses no more than the price of the 17-40L.

Thanks very much!
Click to expand...

Once again, it comes down to what you're going to use it for. If you're willing to spend out on the 17-40L, but want the f/2.8 then the only real choice is between the Tamron and the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS as both Hoppy and I have suggested.

Don't get hooked up in the L thing. The 17-55 IS is as good optically as many L lenses - including the 17-40L.

Saying this though the Tamron is optically only a fraction behind it.
 
The23rdman said:
Once again, it comes down to what you're going to use it for. If you're willing to spend out on the 17-40L, but want the f/2.8 then the only real choice is between the Tamron and the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS as both Hoppy and I have suggested.

Don't get hooked up in the L thing. The 17-55 IS is as good optically as many L lenses - including the 17-40L.

Saying this though the Tamron is optically only a fraction behind it.
Click to expand...

The Tamron VC and non-VC 17-55 2.8 are completely different optical designs.
 
interested in this thread as im also looking for a new one,

sorry to throw the ball off, but how does the sigma 24-70 f2.8 compare to these??

wes
:D
 
SkyQPic said:
So which one do you recommend? 17-40, 17-50 VC and 17-50 NON-VC
Thanks!
Click to expand...

Canon 17-55 2.8 IS. Sorry, but that's the one. They're quite often in the for sale section. I sold one recently for less than £600. It was perfect.

17-40L is beautifuly made and great as a super-wide on full frame, but is wasted a cropper - very average spec.

Tamron non-VC has a good rep, but the VC version is, frankly, just not in the same class at all.
 
17-55 IS is mucho expensivo. Granted a great lens.

If you have to consider getting this lens then think hard and in the future. If when u upgrade your camera you re contented with the best cropper, a 7D, then yes the 17-55 IS is def teh way to go.

But if you find the full frame is somewhere in the box for one day, then 17-50 tamron non vc is the way to go.

Reason... both cant be used on a FF so no worth spending so much on a lens you might have to sell one day


P.S when one day you decide to go FF, then bother yourself with the 17-40 L.
 
P-Chan said:
17-55 IS is mucho expensivo. Granted a great lens.

If you have to consider getting this lens then think hard and in the future. If when u upgrade your camera you re contented with the best cropper, a 7D, then yes the 17-55 IS is def teh way to go.

But if you find the full frame is somewhere in the box for one day, then 17-50 tamron non vc is the way to go.

Reason... both cant be used on a FF so no worth spending so much on a lens you might have to sell one day


P.S when one day you decide to go FF, then bother yourself with the 17-40 L.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that advice.

If you're going to use a crop format camera, then use lenses designed for it.

Even if you intend to move to full frame one day a) good lenses like the 17-55 2.8 hold their value well and sell quickly, and b) if you've gone and bought eg a 17-40L with an eye to full frame, when you get a full frame camera it will behave compeletley differently and you'll want to replace it with a 24-70 or 24-105 anyway. And vice versa.
 
SkyQPic said:
up to now, tamron 17-50 seems to be the one for me...
Click to expand...

Get it then! The Canon 17-55 IS is the better lens, but personally I couldn't justify the extra cost for the IS. Some people can, and are very happy, and others can't, and are equally happy with the Tamron.

Only go for the 17-40 if you're going to be going full-frame in the immediate future, as although it's a great lens for full-frame, the specification for it on a crop body really isn't that great!

Chris
 
chris you seem to know your lens, and also after a sigma like i am, in your opinion what is better (sharper) out of the tamron or siggy 28-70 lens?
 
westley byford said:
chris you seem to know your lens, and also after a sigma like i am, in your opinion what is better (sharper) out of the tamron or siggy 28-70 lens?
Click to expand...

PM'd to avoid taking the thread off-topic :)

Chris
 
I have the Tamron 17-50 and recently bought the VC version. I know the received wisdom is that the non-VC version blows the other away.
Actually, I couldn't see any difference in IQ at all.
The VC was less convincing than Nikon's VR and is, as suggested by all, noisy. At these focal lengths I'm not convinced of the necessity unless we're talking looonnng exposures.
The VC is also a much larger and heavier lens than the original (it looks great though!!).
Nothing wrong with the VC- version, just didn't see the point for me, so sent it back.
 
I don't think this is a hard decision.
If you go for fullframe, go for the 17-40, otherwise, the tamron 17-50 NON VC, just forget the VC one.
 
HoppyUK said:
The Tamron VC and non-VC 17-55 2.8 are completely different optical designs.
Click to expand...

Richard, if you'd read all my posts, fella, you'd see that I recommend the non-VC over the VC. I'd never buy the VC version.
 
The23rdman said:
Richard, if you'd read all my posts, fella, you'd see that I recommend the non-VC over the VC. I'd never buy the VC version.
Click to expand...

I apologise for not re-reading all your posts every time I visit a thread. It is a failing.

However, fella, in the interests of clarity, and for the benefit of others with such a confusingly ambiguous recommendation, you should make it clear. It is a failing.
 
HoppyUK said:
I apologise for not re-reading all your posts every time I visit a thread. It is a failing.

However, fella, in the interests of clarity, and for the benefit of others with such a confusingly ambiguous recommendation, you should make it clear. It is a failing.
Click to expand...

Oooo! Did someone get out of bed the wrong side this morning? ;) Sorry if I assumed the OP would have read the entire thread.

You don't have to re-read all my posts. Once should be enough. Read, remember. :P

Oh, and I don't believe in failure as a concept so we're both off the hook.:cool:
 
Something must be wrong... I've never seen Hoppy make a post like that, he's usually one of the most cool-headed around here! :lol:
 
I was a bit shocked, I must admit. I've nothing but respect for Richard and that doesn't change.
 
The23rdman said:
I was a bit shocked, I must admit. I've nothing but respect for Richard and that doesn't change.
Click to expand...

You guys are easily shocked. I thought it was a very measured reply.

I think it's important to be clear, and not just for the OP's benefit. People do read things, believe them, and make expensive choices. Foolish though that may be, I've even done it myself :lol:

Keep up the respect though :D
 
It was a measured reply but there was clearly a 'tone' there which I've never ever seen from you... for someone like me it's par for the course but you're one of the most polite members we have here I think lol.
 
HoppyUK said:
You guys are easily shocked. I thought it was a very measured reply.

I think it's important to be clear, and not just for the OP's benefit. People do read things, believe them, and make expensive choices. Foolish though that may be, I've even done it myself :lol:

Keep up the respect though :D
Click to expand...

That's the problem with forums though, isn't it? It's really hard to read the tone in a post. Maybe it says more about the reader than the poster.

Anyway, all one big happy family again. :D
 
The23rdman said:
That's the problem with forums though, isn't it? It's really hard to read the tone in a post. Maybe it says more about the reader than the poster.

Anyway, all one big happy family again. :D
Click to expand...

Haha yes :)

I know I sometimes have quite a 'forthright' tone, which people occasionally take the wrong way.

I must work on that. Make it more obviously offensive :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top