New start

[jon ryan]

Good luck with it! Don't forget to post some shots here.

 

[andyred]

canon 55-250 is, as I've read some fairly bullet proof reviews on here!

The Canon 55-250IS is a belter of a lens, especially for the price. Don't worry about mkI or II - they are the same lens, just a slight cosmetic tweak on the mk II.

My daughters got one and gets fantastic shots with it

 

[DoctorBob]

Hang on to the word `marginally`.



You'll have to explain this `designed for FF` thing. What does this mean? The 17-40 came out before FF cameras were widely available. Standard EF lenses will work on both crop and full frame bodies. It's the EF-S fittings that only work with one and not the other.

IQ is just one aspect of a lens. The most important one, sure, but considerations such as ease of use, speed and accuracy of focus, build quality and retention of value are also important. And the differences in IQ on these two are negligible (or marginal if you prefer).

The `marginal` advantage of the Tamron was anyway obtained under test conditions, not real life, and is being observed on a screen. But, how does it do at night in a barn full of drunk Conservatives? (where mine was on Saturday!) Can it deal with driving rain at a marathon? How about when shooting coastal storms? Will it still be taking pin-sharp photos well over 100,000 shots down the line? And will it now be worth more than paid for?

Was the lens clean? How is the camera set up? How skilled is the user? All these have to be taken into account for a fair comparison.

Cherry-picking one aspect but ignoring others is a bit like claiming a Skoda is better than a Ferrari because it has carpets, the heater works better, and you can hear the stereo at 60MPH.

Still, in the end it's down to personal preference. Why not ask the next ten professional photographers you meet how many `L` series lenses they have, and how many Tamrons are in their bags.

(Although it may take a while. I don't think I've ever met a pro who uses a Tamron 17-50. Odd, that...)

Well I'm left rather confused.. I was about to launch into an explanation that EF =/ FF (e.g. Sigma 70-300 DC, which has an EF mount but has an image circle intended for APS-C sensors), and that designed for FF meant they have put sufficient glass in for a FF sensor, and then I read

(And I have to apologise to you, squishy. I was rather hoping that you'd pick up that the 17-40 was originally produced for film, not digital cameras. I'm marking student photography papers in between getting a rise out of TP posters, and one of the things I try to do is get them to think it through )

and I'm left wondering if you need (or want) any explanation? Please let me know if you want to continue this discussion

PS professionals will likely have at least one FF or APS-H camera in their possession, so they are unlikely to have (m)any crop lenses in their bag..

 

[jon ryan]

Well I'm left rather confused.. I was about to launch into an explanation that EF =/ FF (e.g. Sigma 70-300 DC, which has an EF mount but has an image circle intended for APS-C sensors), and that designed for FF meant they have put sufficient glass in for a FF sensor, and then I read

and I'm left wondering if you need (or want) any explanation? Please let me know if you want to continue this discussion

PS professionals will likely have at least one FF or APS-H camera in their possession, so they are unlikely to have (m)any crop lenses in their bag..

Kind of you, but I think I have a grasp of the fundamentals, having taught this stuff for quite a few years now

"A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing" was how Mr Pope put it, and I'm not arguing. Quite often people come up on here and other snappery places and make quite outlandish statements, mostly, I think, because they have read a piece that impressed them, such as one make of camera being inherently better than another, or that uv filters are an invention of Satan and will bring a plague upon your photography. Or that you can `do it all in the camera`. Have you noticed that when an article on, say, back-focusing, a thicket of threads immediately springs up, peopled by concerned photographers who become convinced that their perfectly good lenses are faulty. Usually, I sigh and let it pass, or write a polite (-ish) comment offering an alternative view (usually it's to point out that digital images all come out a bit soft - try some sharpening. And when did you last clean your lens? The sheepish looks I see when I bring this one up with students... )

But sometimes, when people people come up with wildly inaccurate claims, such as a cheap Tamron lens being better overall than an `L` series Canon... well, I get a little tetchy.

The `designed for FF` thing is irritating because it seems that people have fallen for Canon marketing, which suggests that you cannot use top lenses on entry-level bodies, when the reality is that they work perfectly well and are likely to be the best means of improving to appearance of your shots.

 

[odd jim]

Kind of you, but I think I have a grasp of the fundamentals, having taught this stuff for quite a few years now

"A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing" was how Mr Pope put it, and I'm not arguing. Quite often people come up on here and other snappery places and make quite outlandish statements, mostly, I think, because they have read a piece that impressed them, such as one make of camera being inherently better than another, or that uv filters are an invention of Satan and will bring a plague upon your photography. Or that you can `do it all in the camera`. Have you noticed that when an article on, say, back-focusing, a thicket of threads immediately springs up, peopled by concerned photographers who become convinced that their perfectly good lenses are faulty. Usually, I sigh and let it pass, or write a polite (-ish) comment offering an alternative view (usually it's to point out that digital images all come out a bit soft - try some sharpening. And when did you last clean your lens? The sheepish looks I see when I bring this one up with students... )

But sometimes, when people people come up with wildly inaccurate claims, such as a cheap Tamron lens being better overall than an `L` series Canon... well, I get a little tetchy.

The `designed for FF` thing is irritating because it seems that people have fallen for Canon marketing, which suggests that you cannot use top lenses on entry-level bodies, when the reality is that they work perfectly well and are likely to be the best means of improving to appearance of your shots.

Two things Mr teacher;

1 - on a crop body the Tamron IS the better overall lens - fact. Better range, better IQ, faster aperture, I'm confused how on earth you can say the 17-40 is the better overall lens?!

2 - UV filters *are* the work of Satan...

 

[s162216]

There we go again. Canon were not selling a 35mm sensor camera when this lens came out. How could it have been produced for them? It works perfectly well on any Canon EF body.

There was something called FILM before 'full frame' DSLR's in case you've forgotten which is always 'full frame' on 35mm SLR's. In 2003 when the 17 - 40 was introduced a majority of professionals were still using film based Canon EOS 1V's etc.

BTW, the person above who said that only Sony Alpha cameras have built in stabilisation, Pentax cameras do too.

 

[jon ryan]

Two things Mr teacher;

1 - on a crop body the Tamron IS the better overall lens - fact. Better range, better IQ, faster aperture, I'm confused how on earth you can say the 17-40 is the better overall lens?!

2 - UV filters *are* the work of Satan...

1:

1/Does it focus as fast?
2/Does it reliably lock in low light?
3/Is it weather sealed?
4/Is the build quality as good?
5/Does it hold its value as well?
6/Does it give equally good results on crop and FF bodies?
7/Is it as good ergonomically?
8/Does it have an impressive red ring on the barrel?

o·ver·all   [adv. oh-ver-awl; adj., n. oh-ver-awl]
adverb, adjective
covering or including everything: an overall impression; to view something overall.

cherry-pick transitive verb, intransitive verb

to select (only what one considers to be best or most desirable, profitable, etc.) from a number of options

2: NOT!!

 

[jon ryan]

There was something called FILM before 'full frame' DSLR's in case you've forgotten which is always 'full frame' on 35mm SLR's. In 2003 when the 17 - 40 was introduced a majority of professionals were still using film based Canon EOS 1V's etc.

BTW, the person above who said that only Sony Alpha cameras have built in stabilisation, Pentax cameras do too.

Ah! So I was right when I said exactly this in my post #34

 

[odd jim]

1:

1/Does it focus as fast?
2/Does it reliably lock in low light?
3/Is it weather sealed?
4/Is the build quality as good?
5/Does it hold its value as well?
6/Does it give equally good results on crop and FF bodies?
7/Is it as good ergonomically?
8/Does it have an impressive red ring on the barrel?

o·ver·all   [adv. oh-ver-awl; adj., n. oh-ver-awl]
adverb, adjective
covering or including everything: an overall impression; to view something overall.

cherry-pick transitive verb, intransitive verb

to select (only what one considers to be best or most desirable, profitable, etc.) from a number of options

2: NOT!!

1- Does it focus as fast? Maybe a few milliseconds slower, but it's not noticeable.

2- Does it lock reliably in low light? Yes.

3 - Is it weather sealed. No. But that's a moot point as a lot of users bodies won't be weather sealed.

4 - Build quality - irrelevant. It's more than good enough.

5 - Does it hold it's value as well? Well it depreciates slower but that's relative to it's initial cost so again, a moot point.

6 - Does it give as good results on both FF and crop - yet again another moot point as its a crop only lens.

7 - Ergonomics - again, moot point. I've yet to see a lens that is more ergonomic than the next, they all follow the same basic principles.

8 - Impressive red ring - don't make me laugh!

Your argument was a massive fail I'm afraid. And the amount of moot points you raised shows the flaws in your rationale.

The Tamron is still by far the better overall lens on a crop, but I knew that anyway.

Sorry but you're exhibiting the usual L lens snobbery sadly evident on forums these days.

 

[jon ryan]

We are each entitled to our delusion of choice.

I'll stick with the `L` series, along with many thousands of my fellow pros. Good luck with telling us we've all got it wrong - and I hope Tamron are paying you nicely!

 

[odd jim]

We are each entitled to our delusion of choice.

I'll stick with the `L` series, along with many thousands of my fellow pros. Good luck with telling us we've all got it wrong - and I hope Tamron are paying you nicely!

You make me smile! I think there are plenty that would agree with me on this one. I wish I was getting paid by Tamron, heck, I don't even own any of their lenses (though have used both lenses discussed here) but my opinion is based on fact and experience, and I don't think you've used the Tamron have you?

The fact is, the 17-40L is rather pointless on a crop and there are plenty of better, more inexpensive crop designed lenses more suited to the 1.6 sensor.

 

[jon ryan]

1- Does it focus as fast? Maybe a few milliseconds slower, but it's not noticeable.

So you are saying the Canon is better.

2- Does it lock reliably in low light? Yes.

Citation, please

3 - Is it weather sealed. No. But that's a moot point as a lot of users bodies won't be weather sealed.

So you saying the Canon is better

4 - Build quality - irrelevant. It's more than good enough.

Please explain why do you think build is irrelevant. The question was 'Does the Canon have better build quality` You seem, again, to accept that the Canon is superior, but are dodging the question.

5 - Does it hold it's value as well? Well it depreciates slower but that's relative to it's initial cost so again, a moot point.

'It depreciates slower'. So you are saying the Canon is better.

6 - Does it give as good results on both FF and crop - yet again another moot point as its a crop only lens.

As the Canon works in a wider range of conditions, you presumably accept that this is better

7 - Ergonomics - again, moot point. I've yet to see a lens that is more ergonomic than the next, they all follow the same basic principles.

Are you serious? You find all lenses ergonomically identical?

8 - Impressive red ring - don't make me laugh!

joke (jk)
n.
1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
4. Informal
a. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality

 

[odd jim]

So you are saying the Canon is better.

Citation, please

So you saying the Canon is better

Please explain why do you think build is irrelevant. The question was 'Does the Canon have better build quality` You seem, again, to accept that the Canon is superior, but are dodging the question.

'It depreciates slower'. So you are saying the Canon is better.

As the Canon works in a wider range of conditions, you presumably accept that this is better

Are you serious? You find all lenses ergonomically identical?

joke (jk)
n.
1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
4. Informal
a. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality

No, read my response as it's written! Anything moot or irrelevant is just that, there are no hidden meanings.

Your responses are now just arrogant and blinded by L snobbery.

No more replies from me as the OP has probably left already, and I was making inputs for his/her benefit.

 

[jon ryan]

OK, but a final point, if you would: are you seriously saying that the thousands upon thousands of us who make our living from photography, are using `L` series lenses out of snobbery?

Nothing to do with the possibility that over the years we find that these lenses perform more reliably, last longer and give consistently better results? Do you honestly believe, particularly in the current economic situation, and when some photographers are finding it increasingly difficult to make a living, that vanity will determine what sort of kit we buy?

Do you really believe that?

 

[arad85]

(And I have to apologise to you, squishy. I was rather hoping that you'd pick up that the 17-40 was originally produced for film, not digital cameras. I'm marking student photography papers in between getting a rise out of TP posters, and one of the things I try to do is get them to think it through )

Really? So the fact that both the 1D and 1Ds were out before the 17-40 came along would have nothing to do with Canon wanting to produce a low cost, high quality lens for them then. I really do wish some people would think it through when marking papers

We are each entitled to our delusion of choice.

I'll stick with the `L` series, along with many thousands of my fellow pros. Good luck with telling us we've all got it wrong - and I hope Tamron are paying you nicely!

Do most pros really only use APS-C sized sensors? I really do wish some people would think it through before replying

The fact is, the 17-40L is rather pointless on a crop and there are plenty of better, more inexpensive crop designed lenses more suited to the 1.6 sensor.

Yup. I have to agree on that. And I own a 17-40L and a 7D as well as a 5D2.

 

[jon ryan]

Originally Posted by jon ryan
(And I have to apologise to you, squishy. I was rather hoping that you'd pick up that the 17-40 was originally produced for film, not digital cameras. I'm marking student photography papers in between getting a rise out of TP posters, and one of the things I try to do is get them to think it through )

Really? So the fact that both the 1D and 1Ds were out before the 17-40 came along would have nothing to do with Canon wanting to produce a low cost, high quality lens for them then. I really do wish some people would think it through when marking papers

Not quite with you. The 1D was a crop (APS-H), so are you saying that the 17-40 was produced with crop bodies in mind? As far as I know, the 1Ds and the 17-40 L came out at around the same time (2003, I think), but I'm happy to be corrected. What is your point here?

Do most pros really only use APS-C sized sensors? I really do wish some people would think it through before replying

Many, if not most, have both crop and FF bodies these days, and use the same lenses on both. I don't know any who have a specific set of lenses for crop and FF bodies - we're not made of money! But many I know use the 17-40, and most tend to stick with `L` series.

Originally Posted by odd jim
The fact is, the 17-40L is rather pointless on a crop and there are plenty of better, more inexpensive crop designed lenses more suited to the 1.6 sensor.

Yup. I have to agree on that. And I own a 17-40L and a 7D as well as a 5D2.

This is a fact, is it? Interesting how many of us get this wrong. Why is your 17-40 not working properly on your crop body, do you think?

 

[odd jim]

OK, but a final point, if you would: are you seriously saying that the thousands upon thousands of us who make our living from photography, are using `L` series lenses out of snobbery?

Nothing to do with the possibility that over the years we find that these lenses perform more reliably, last longer and give consistently better results? Do you honestly believe, particularly in the current economic situation, and when some photographers are finding it increasingly difficult to make a living, that vanity will determine what sort of kit we buy?

Do you really believe that?

No I don't think that, but in relation to the lens comparison we were making, I think your opinion was biased simply in favour of the L lens purely because it's a L lens, when the Tamron is far more suitable for the op, and crop sensor bodies in general.

 

[Woodsy]

My only experience of the tamron 17-50 non VC is that it's soft as puppy sh**. I personally wouldn't bother with it and save for a second hand 17-55. The tamron is a c£250 F/2.8 lens. You get what you pay for.

 

[jon ryan]

Originally Posted by jon ryan
OK, but a final point, if you would: are you seriously saying that the thousands upon thousands of us who make our living from photography, are using `L` series lenses out of snobbery?

Nothing to do with the possibility that over the years we find that these lenses perform more reliably, last longer and give consistently better results? Do you honestly believe, particularly in the current economic situation, and when some photographers are finding it increasingly difficult to make a living, that vanity will determine what sort of kit we buy?

Do you really believe that?

No I don't think that, but in relation to the lens comparison we were making, I think your opinion was biased simply in favour of the L lens purely because it's a L lens, when the Tamron is far more suitable for the op, and crop sensor bodies in general.

OK, possibly this is getting a bit heated - apologies if I was getting arsey. Yes, I am biased towards `L` lenses. I work with them every day, and I can't think of a single occasion when I've regretted the cost. Back when we were still friends, I think the comparison was a straight Canon v Tamron fight, and I still reckon the Canon would win. But, of course you are right that when cost has to be considered, you buy the best you can afford. And quite possibly this is the Tamron. Which I haven't tried. So I don't know what I'm talking about.

If it works for you, go with it.

 

[odd jim]

OK, possibly this is getting a bit heated - apologies if I was getting arsey. Yes, I am biased towards `L` lenses. I work with them every day, and I can't think of a single occasion when I've regretted the cost. Back when we were still friends, I think the comparison was a straight Canon v Tamron fight, and I still reckon the Canon would win. But, of course you are right that when cost has to be considered, you buy the best you can afford. And quite possibly this is the Tamron. Which I haven't tried. So I don't know what I'm talking about.

If it works for you, go with it.

We're still friends

 

[jon ryan]

We're still friends

Yeah? I don't remember seeing a card on the 14th...

 

[odd jim]

Yeah? I don't remember seeing a card on the 14th...

It was anon...

 

[arad85]

Not quite with you. The 1D was a crop (APS-H), so are you saying that the 17-40 was produced with crop bodies in mind?

You can't use APS-C lenses on an APS-H body. You HAVE to have full frame lenses on them. Canon would have designed with FF in mind anyway as they knew they were developing the 1Ds. Epic fail on your reasoning as to why I was wrong.

Many, if not most, have both crop and FF bodies these days, and use the same lenses on both. I don't know any who have a specific set of lenses for crop and FF bodies - we're not made of money! But many I know use the 17-40, and most tend to stick with `L` series.

Yes. They have BOTH bodies. Having a FF lens and using it on multiple cameras makes sense.

This is a fact, is it? Interesting how many of us get this wrong. Why is your 17-40 not working properly on your crop body, do you think?

My 17-40 works fine on my crop body. I prefer to use the 15-85 because it has better focal range, goes wider, has IS and is generally more useful. It also cost less. I don't give a fig whether it is better built or has weather sealing - those features aren't important to me for the use that camera gets. Nor are they likely to be important for the OP as he says he wants an all rounder for his (non weather sealed) 450D. There are better all rounders for a 450D than the 17-40. Arguing otherwise just puts your preferences above the OPs and that's like someone asking which is the best spherical fruit and being told over and over that in your opinion, and in those of all others who do the fruit eating job professionally, a banana is best. Great, but it doesn't answer the OPs question or help him along in any way....


But then you know that and are just trolling

 

[specialman]

Go on then....

I used both the 17-40 and the 17-50 for a considerable amount of time, all for pro work, mainly outdoors. The canon lens is without a doubt the better made lens and dealt with bad weather with ease. However, the Tamron never failed me in rain.
In every other aspect, the Tamron was the better lens; equal AF speed, ad sharp, better zoom range, faster max aperture, better handling in terms of the zoom ring and focus ring. Plus, its half the price.

The 17-40 is without a doubt a great lens probably pays its way well on a 35mm/full frame body but for crop the Tamron makes sense in every way.

End of.

 

[mjb123]

No more replies from me as the OP has probably left already, and I was making inputs for his/her benefit.[/QUOTE]

I had gone but am now back still gripped with such an in depth debate!
To be honest I'm not settled on the tamron 17-50, when I buy something I like to make sure it's the best wether it be a power tool for work or tyres for the van!
So am just trying now to justify paying around £550 for a canon 17-55 seems like such a big lump of money and am unsure that being such a small fry at this game wether I would notice the difference between either!!!

 

[arad85]

To be honest I'm not settled on the tamron 17-50, when I buy something I like to make sure it's the best wether it be a power tool for work or tyres for the van!
So am just trying now to justify paying around £550 for a canon 17-55 seems like such a big lump of money and am unsure that being such a small fry at this game wether I would notice the difference between either!!!

Which is a worse scenario. You spend a lot on a Canon and then have a nagging doubt that the Tamron would have been just as good and you could have some money in the bank or you save money and buy the Tamron and have a nagging doubt that the Canon would have been better if you'd only have bought it. Answer that and you'll be able to decide which one to get

 

[specialman]

To be fair, the 17-55mm f/2.8 is a quality optic - the Nikon version was too much of a temptation for me so I replaced the Tamron with it. It's a much better lens in terms of build and AF but I got it for a very, very good price and it cost me virtually nothing up front. If I wasn't pro and working almost exclusively outdoors, I'd get the Tamron again.

 

[ZoneV]

I was recently in the market for a lens covering this focal length to replace my 18-55 IS kit lens. I narrowed my options down to a Canon 17-40 f/4 L and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC).

In the end I opted for the Tamron, mainly because I am an amateur hobbyist who takes pictures for enjoyment with a APS-C camera, I rarely shoot in the rain, it is roughly half the price of the Canon lens and the performance and results are more than acceptable to me. On this basis I couldn't justify spending the extra money on the Canon.

 

[mjb123]

Well put I don't think I can justify it not when I'll be wanting a big zooooomm lens before the year is out!!

 

[mjb123]

I've just secured a deal on a tamron 17-50 vc version £250, who says eBay doesn't come up with the goods!!