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

A

a lex

Suspended / Banned
Messages
637
Name
Alex
Edit My Images
Yes
As title really. Im looking to replace my 17-85 IS USM with a much sharper lens. Ive narrowed my choices down to the two above. Just looking for opinions really? Can't decide whether I'd want the extra stop and VC or the L quality...


I hardly shoot inside, if I do I use flash so surely f4 with no IS would be ok?

Or is there another alternative? I'd like the 17-55 2.8 but do not think my budget will stretch that far at the moment...

Thanks.
 
The only other real alternative is the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. I honeslty do not think the 17-40 is in the same bracket as it's really more of a full frame UW lens. f/4 will be so limiting.

I'd buy the Tammy. :)
 
Having had a 17 - 40 for nearly a year now i dont think i could have made a better purchase for a wide angle lens, TBH i even thought of the 16 - 35 but i couldnt justify the extra £500 price tag for 2.8 when F4 was more than capable.

Top purchase :thumbs:
 
I really thought that the Canon would of been the best shout...!

So Tamron is recommended then??

Any other apart from the Sigma ive overlooked?!
 
It depends on what you're planning on using it for!

I was struggling with the kit lens as I needed a faster lens. So I got the Tamron and I love it to bits.

However, if I wanted a sharp lens for landscapes, not low-light stuff, I'd go for the Canon.

Also, if you're planning on moving to full-frame in the future, the 17-40 is a good choice, as you won't have to sell it on, unlike the Tamron.

Chris

Edit: As for the Canon being the best.......... I think it's pretty much accepted that the Canon is the best lens for crop sensor at this focal length. But whether it's worth 3 of the Tamrons is a choice only you can make. Personally, I'd have the £400 to put towards other goodies! (prices based on second hand non-VC ones)
 
a lex said:
I really thought that the Canon would of been the best shout...!

So Tamron is recommended then??

Any other apart from the Sigma ive overlooked?!
Click to expand...

I would buy the Tamron non VC- seems to be a lot of bad samples out there of the VC and at these focal lengths stabilisation is more marketing hype than anything else.
The non VC is a great lens and is also not a dust pump- like the 17-55, nice one Canon:razz:;)
 
Dr_O said:
I would buy the Tamron non VC- seems to be a lot of bad samples out there of the VC and at these focal lengths stabilisation is more marketing hype than anything else.
The non VC is a great lens and is also not a dust pump- like the 17-55, nice one Canon:razz:;)
Click to expand...

Another vote for the nonVC version, just got it for my D90, cracking lens and if your not shooting too much low light then the VC wouldn't make much difference.
 
Thanks everyone for the pointers.

chris321 said:
It depends on what you're planning on using it for!

I was struggling with the kit lens as I needed a faster lens. So I got the Tamron and I love it to bits.

However, if I wanted a sharp lens for landscapes, not low-light stuff, I'd go for the Canon.

Also, if you're planning on moving to full-frame in the future, the 17-40 is a good choice, as you won't have to sell it on, unlike the Tamron.

Chris
Click to expand...

It would mainly be used outside which was making me head towards the 17-40. Inside id use a flash or the 50 1.4.

Dr_O said:
I would buy the Tamron non VC- seems to be a lot of bad samples out there of the VC and at these focal lengths stabilisation is more marketing hype than anything else.
The non VC is a great lens and is also not a dust pump- like the 17-55, nice one Canon:razz:;)
Click to expand...

Yeh I was also looking at non VC... the whole no need for IS at these lengths is an interesting argument.

Looking at alternatives on the Jessops site the 15-85 looks alright? Anyone had much experience with it?

Also the 24-70 2.8... well that looks bloody nice too...
 
I've owned the non-IS Tammy 15-50 and also a 17-40. I preferred the 17-40. It focused faster, was weather sealed, and IMO had better colour rendition than the Tamron. I got some ace shots from it.

One further point, the Tamron will not fit an FF camera, so if you intend to move in that direction, it's worth taking into account.
 
Sorry to bring this back up but still looking and am been drawn towards the Canon 15-85 IS USM..m seems to get some good feedback?

Anyone used one?

Thanks.
 
a lex said:
Sorry to bring this back up but still looking and am been drawn towards the Canon 15-85 IS USM..m seems to get some good feedback?

Anyone used one?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Never used one, so take my comments with a pinch of salt....

The general internet review verdict is that the optics are spot on, but it's not especially fast, and a little pricey. If you can find one for a good price though, and you don't need a fast lens, it sounds pretty good!
 
Cheers Chris.

In my tiredness (im using that as my excuse!) I somewhat overlooked the speed of it...

Back to either the Tamron or the 17-40 or unless I decide to treat myself the 24-70 or 24-105. So many choices!
 
a lex said:
Back to either the Tamron or the 17-40
Click to expand...

Well, do you need to use it at f/2.8 I guess is the big question! If so, there's only one choice. If not, the Canon will probably give better results at other apertures, be built better, and FF compatible. But if f/4 won't cut it, no amount of build quality or future-proofing is going to be of help :)
 
I'd go for the Tamron. On a crop body it's actually sharper than the 17-40mm f4L (with both lenses at f4) and you get an extra stop of light for when you need it. Obviously the L has better build quality but the tamron's build is perfectly adequate imo. The only reason I'd get the 17-40, is if you plan to upgrade to full frame in the future.

Oh and as mentioned above, get the non VC version, a little sharper from what I've seen and IS is of little use on a wide angle (especially as you say you'll be using it mostly outdoors).
 
What do you shoot? If as you say outside mostly, you wont notice the extra stop if shooting landscapes at all. Portraits may be slightly different, as it will come in handy.
I have the 17-40 and moved on to it from the 17-85 a few years ago, I still have the 17-40 (same one) and use it as my main landscape lens, both on film bodies and cropped digital bodies.
It is most definitely NOT just for full frame, in fact as a general purpose lens for a cropped body I think its pretty much ideal.

Go http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx for a brilliant review.
 
My dad tried the 15-85mm Canon and found that when he pointed the lens downwards the lens crept forwards!!! Not good but don't know if this is a prob with just that actual lens rather than all 15-85's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top