Canon 17-40 f4 or Tamron 17-50 f2.8, help me decide

Scotty Pro

Scotty Pro

Suspended / Banned
Messages
841
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
OK guys (and gals)

I'm going to ditch the kit lens and get another zoom to replace it. was thinking since I have the Canon 50mm 1.4 I could get the 17-40 and have the 50mm range covered, or, do I go for the Tammy and have the overlap at 50mm ?

Was looking to get either a new Tammy or a good used 17-40. I really fancy the 17-40 because of the L build, glass and ring USM, opinions please, especially from anyone that has both or used both.
 
If you want the L build quality, then that's decided (why exactly?) but 17-40L is largely wasted on a crop format camera. More range of the 17-50, and f/2.8. Get the Canon 17-55 for preference, even better, and with IS.
 
The 17-40 is well built as you'd expect, I err dropped it and my camera into a pile of crap the other day and it still lives on to tell the tale. Optically though it isn't without its faults, although you will only be seeing the best of it on a 40D. Still I wouldn't really reccommend it on a 40D, there are better options out there (f/2.8, IS etc) that will cover the same or more range.
 
I'm not sure I would be looking at canon 17-40 its range is limited and its f4 so I don’t really see that much appeal on a crop body. If you are thinking of moving up to a full frame in the next year or so then it might be a sensible choice.

I would be looking at either of these two even know they are not L glass both are very good:

tamron 17-50 f2.8

or

Canon 17-55 f2.8 if funds allow

As a curve ball have you considered the canon 24-105 f4
 
The 17-55 is a bit out of my price range at the moment and TBH I could go without the IS at that focal length (thats why I'm not considering the VC Tammy version).

I really like the speed and quietness of the Canon USM's although I have never tried the Tamron to compare. Has anyone got a comparison of speed of focus and the noise when focusing? The local Jessops haven't got a Tammy in for my to try.
 
The Tammy is noisier than the Canon variants but I wouldn't class it as extreme or distracting.
It has very fast focusing and the f2.8 comes in handy in low light conditions.
It was the best 200 notes I spent and way better than the kit lens.
 
The Canon 17-40 f4 L, remember the 1.6 x rule as this is not an EFS lens so it will give you 27- 64mm
The Tamron is designed for EFS cropped bodies so it will give you 17-50.
Personally I would opt for the Tamron, I love L glass but some, including the 17-40 L are just not suitable for the cropped sensor bodies imho.
 
stupar said:
The Tammy is noisier than the Canon variants but I wouldn't class it as extreme or distracting.
It has very fast focusing and the f2.8 comes in handy in low light conditions.
It was the best 200 notes I spent and way better than the kit lens.
Click to expand...

£200 where did you get it from for that price ??

Would you consider the Tammy to be about the same noisewise as the kit lens it replaced or is it louder ?

I really hate the noise that the kit lens makes whilst focusing :thumbsdown:
 
The Tamron is designed for EFS cropped bodies so it will give you 17-50.
Click to expand...
Is that right? I thought even EF-S lenses were multiplied on crop sensors for consistency in naming?
 
I used to have the Tammy 17-50 none VC when I had my 40D, at the time the 17-55 IS was out of my price bracket.

It was really sharp lens and fantastic value but it could hunt a bit in low light and it sounded like an air-tool when focusing. No full-time manual focus either.

I also found it just a little bit to short (that extra 5mm makes all the difference to me). I ultimately traded it and another lens (15-85 IS USM) against a used 17-55 IS USM and was blown away by it.

The moral as far as I'm concerned is get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. You may have to save you pennies for a while longer but it is a cracking lens on a crop body, red ring or not.
 
i have had the 17-55 is and the tamron non vc both are very very good.
 
hashcake said:
The Tamron is designed for EFS cropped bodies so it will give you 17-50
Click to expand...

Not so, a 17-50 focal length is a 17-50 focal length on a crop body or full frame.

The only thing that changes between a EF-S and an EF type lens is the size of the image circle produced over the sensor by the lens. The EF-S type lens design exploits the smaller required image circle of a crop sensor to minimise the physical size of the optical lens group.

It is the sensor size that gives you the magnification factor.
 
Scotty Pro said:
£200 where did you get it from for that price ??

Would you consider the Tammy to be about the same noisewise as the kit lens it replaced or is it louder ?

I really hate the noise that the kit lens makes whilst focusing :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

I got mine for that price on gumtree, absolute steal!
The Tammy is slightly noisier than the Canon kit lens
 
I've got the Tamron in VC very rarely off of my 40D now . A great all round lens , the focus is fast and you don't really notice the noise after too long .
 
stupar said:
I got mine for that price on gumtree, absolute steal!
The Tammy is slightly noisier than the Canon kit lens
Click to expand...

thats the bit that worries me, my kit lens is not the best sounding lens when focusing. I must be spoiled with my 2 USM lenses, nice and quick, quite and of course there is the FTM focus.

If I go for the Tammy it will probably be mail order unless I go driving around somewhere to find someone that has a one in stock.

Will the 17mm length of the 17-40 give me the same view as the 17mm end of the Tammy ? I'm asking that as some of the comments about the 17-40 seem to suggest its not a good choice for crop frame whereas the Tammy is.
 
Scotty Pro said:
thats the bit that worries me, my kit lens is not the best sounding lens when focusing. I must be spoiled with my 2 USM lenses, nice and quick, quite and of course there is the FTM focus.

If I go for the Tammy it will probably be mail order unless I go driving around somewhere to find someone that has a one in stock.

Will the 17mm length of the 17-40 give me the same view as the 17mm end of the Tammy ? I'm asking that as some of the comments about the 17-40 seem to suggest its not a good choice for crop frame whereas the Tammy is.
Click to expand...

YES 17mm on both lens will give the same FOV on the same body...........

I had both lens on a 50D the Canon has a better build quality faster & quieter focusing but the Tamron has better IQ - the focusing noise is not too intrusive.
 
Had the 17-40 for several years, totally brilliant lens that was optically great, had good (quiet) focussing and brilliant build quality. If they made it in Nikon fit I'd have one now.

The Tamron 17-50 (I have the Di II version) is brilliant, my most used lens and it's probably got me mire cover shots than any other lens I currently have or have had in the past. Light, decent build quality for it's price and exceptional optics, again at that price. AF is reliable, although not as quiet as the Canon but still decent. Plus, for £200 you'll get a mint used copy (got mine for £160 on fleabay :)).

Personally, as an allspice lens, the Tamron is the kiddy because of the faster max aperture and better zoom range. As a landscape ken the Canon I feel is better because if weatherproofing.
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
Not so, a 17-50 focal length is a 17-50 focal length on a crop body or full frame.

The only thing that changes between a EF-S and an EF type lens is the size of the image circle produced over the sensor by the lens. The EF-S type lens design exploits the smaller required image circle of a crop sensor to minimise the physical size of the optical lens group.

It is the sensor size that gives you the magnification factor.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected.
Does the same then apply to the EF lenses as well when used on a croppsed sensor body, or am I getting confused?
 
I'll like to know too,I thought the only difference was the fit to the camera?
 
hashcake said:
I stand corrected.
Does the same then apply to the EF lenses as well when used on a croppsed sensor body, or am I getting confused?
Click to expand...

I think you're getting confused. Focal length is focal length.

Basically the difference with EF-S or DX lenses for crop format cameras is they can't use the the bigger image circle, so manufacturers don't bother to build it into the design. But the bit that's left in the middle, so to speak, is exactly the same focal length regardless.

As a result, if you could fit an EF-S lens to a full frame camera you would get a dark circle around the edge. In fact you can fit DX lenses to Nikon full framers, and that's exactly what you get.

The benefit of not having to bother with the extra format coverage of full frame, is that designers can do more of other things. Like compare the EF 17-40L for full frame, and the EF-S 17-55 IS - far more range, a whole stop more aperture at f/2.8, and IS as well. These benefits run out very quickly after about 60mm or so, which is why neither Nikon nor Canon makes long lenses in EF-S or DX.
 
Just to be a pedant they both make (or did in Canon's case) 55-200/250mm's in the crop format! :)
 
DemiLion said:
Just to be a pedant they both make (or did in Canon's case) 55-200/250mm's in the crop format! :)
Click to expand...

55 is less than 60 isn't it? ;)
 
I would go with the Tamron. I think the 17-40L is only really useful for full frame.
 
HoppyUK said:
I think you're getting confused. Focal length is focal length.

Basically the difference with EF-S or DX lenses for crop format cameras is they can't use the the bigger image circle, so manufacturers don't bother to build it into the design. But the bit that's left in the middle, so to speak, is exactly the same focal length regardless.

As a result, if you could fit an EF-S lens to a full frame camera you would get a dark circle around the edge. In fact you can fit DX lenses to Nikon full framers, and that's exactly what you get.

The benefit of not having to bother with the extra format coverage of full frame, is that designers can do more of other things. Like compare the EF 17-40L for full frame, and the EF-S 17-55 IS - far more range, a whole stop more aperture at f/2.8, and IS as well. These benefits run out very quickly after about 60mm or so, which is why neither Nikon nor Canon makes long lenses in EF-S or DX.
Click to expand...

Cheers Hoppy, thanks for the explanation ;)
 
17-40 is great for landscapes, wideshots and the like but much barreling for walk about lens. So if it is used for landscapes you do not need the speed of the tammy and it's a great optic.
 
Scotty Pro said:
OK guys (and gals)

I'm going to ditch the kit lens and get another zoom to replace it. was thinking since I have the Canon 50mm 1.4 I could get the 17-40 and have the 50mm range covered, or, do I go for the Tammy and have the overlap at 50mm ?

Was looking to get either a new Tammy or a good used 17-40. I really fancy the 17-40 because of the L build, glass and ring USM, opinions please, especially from anyone that has both or used both.
Click to expand...

If u r using a crop format sensor, then go with the tamron or better yet, the Canon 17-55 f2.8. I think the 17-40 is better for full frame users. That's just my opinion though..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top