Tamron vs Canon

S

stretchy25

Suspended / Banned
Messages
117
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone on here moved from the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 to the Canon 17-40 f4 L?

I'm wondering whether it's worth it ... the Tamron seems to be pretty good, but I'm thinking of treating myself!
 
they're different lenses for different jobs, as a standard zoom for general work the tamron is great espesh in low light

the canon is an amazing lens great for landscapes on ff, but slow and a bit short if the IQ isn't that important
 
As above really!

I have the Tamron and I love it. I chose it over the 17-40 because I needed the f/2.8, even though the lure of the red ring was very tempting!

I'm starting to think about uprading to full frame, at which point the 17-40 will be first on my list of purcheses, but for crop I'd say the Tamron is more suitable. Having said that, if you're really into landscapes, and never use the Tamron between f/2.8 and f/4, then it's a great lens, but personally I don't think a crop sensor makes the best use of it!

Chris
 
Thanks for the advice - I don't think I'm in to landscapes enough to warrant the expenditure - me thinks you've saved me some money!!
 
from varouis reviews related and not.

Canon 17-55 2.8 nails canon 17-40 L

The only substentional part were 17-40 wins is that it can be mounted on a FF camera while 17-55 is only good for cropped like your 450D


Then I read

tamron 17-50 2.8 fights good vs canon 17-55 2.8

canon might be slightly better plus has IS while tamron has not, but price wise tamron demolishes canon.

Yet Im still saving for my canon :)
 
I can say one thing for sure, if you are a shaky old git like me you can't beat the Canon
(probably better even if you are rock steady too)

Not sure the VC version of the Tamron is all that although I must say they are right with the price comparison

The Canon is damn expensive
 
the tamron 17-50 new lens with VC is the expensive inferior newer version of the plain 17-50 2.8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top