17-40L or Tamron 17 - 35

[_andrew]

Which do you think? I have some extra cash coming up and looking into one of these two lenses. People might want to keep in mind that I need every cent of money I can get my hands!

A) Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Autofocus Lens
B) Tamron SP AF17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)

I want a nice wide angle that won't break the budget - too much!

So which is better value for money!

Regards,

Andrew.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

Lets leave IQ aside for a second.

With the 17- 40 L, you get 3 solid pluses:

1- L quality lens.
2- extra 5mm on the long end
3- constant aperture
4- 0.28m (28cm) closest focusing distance

The cons:
1- slow aperture (compared to f/2.8 of tamron)
2- Front end needs filter for full weather-sealing function. This assuming you need complete protection and you have a 1-series or plan on uprgading to a 1-series and will be in hazardous (envrionment-wise) situations a lot.


with tha Tamron the pluses are:

1- partially wider aperture (im not sure how long f/2.8 remains before it switches to f/4) for faster and more accurate AF (while at f/2.8,otherwise when you hit f/4, its the same as the Canon)
2- closest focusing distance is 0.3m (30cm) which is nice for a variety of perspective compositions.
3- half-life macro ratio at 35mm

The cons are prolly listed on the review section here at FM.com
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=245&sort=7&cat=43&page=1

The tamron costs $450 while the Canon costs $665.

So the difference of $215 can be justified if the Canon build is better,Canon's IQ (image quality) is better. I have the 17-40 L, both the build (weather-sealed too) and IQ are excellent.

Check out http://pbase.com/cameras/tamron/sp_af_17-35_28-4_di_ld_if to see if the Tamron's IQ matches or is better than the Canon's here http://pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_1740_4l

[jjonsalt]

Lets leave IQ aside for a second.

With the 17- 40 L,...The cons:
2- Front end needs filter for full weather-sealing function.

How is this a "con" consideration aginst a lens that is not "weather-sealed" at all?

[hemuni]

Hi Andrew, I see you finally switched to digital - congrats!

I own the 17-40 and its a great lense that i truly recommend. I have no experience with the Tamron so I cant really comment on that.

But I was thinking why not go with the 10-22 (or Sigma, Tamron, Tokina alternatives) which is already on your wish list, since you already have 18-55 covered with the kit lense.

Just a suggestion :) good luck!

[prime80]

I can't comment on the 17-40L, but the Tamron 17-35 is an outstanding lens. From all of the comparisons I've seen, IQ is similar on both lenses. I think the only thing you'll really be giving up with the Tamron is the faster USM focusing of the L. You might also want to look at the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, or the "coming soon" Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Tokina 17-5x f/2.8 AT-X Pro. (Can't remember exactly what focal length the Tokina's going to be.) Dunno when those last two are going to be available, though.

[Rigrider]

I have the Tamron (bought it from a fellow PTONer.) From what I've seen from it, it's an EXCELLENT lens. IQ is fantastic, and from 90 % of the reviews I've seen, comparable to the Canon. The weather seal of the Canon is a big benifit....but only if your camera is too.... I think, especially if money is as big of a deal as you say, then deffenatly go with the Tamron.... It's less expensive, but holds up quality wise as far as I'm converned...

Good luck.

L8r,

[SDK^]

The Tamron doesn't have full time manual focus and also the focus ring moves when using auto focus.

[ed rader]

Which do you think? I have some extra cash coming up and looking into one of these two lenses. People might want to keep in mind that I need every cent of money I can get my hands!

A) Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Autofocus Lens
B) Tamron SP AF17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)

I want a nice wide angle that won't break the budget - too much!

So which is better value for money!

Regards,

Andrew.

if you want to save money the obvious choice is the tamron. this is my only non-canon lens and i love it.

i have no experience with the canon but i think it's a fine lens too. i doubt that you'll see much if any difference in IQ between the two.

ed rader

[wonny]

Another vote for the Tamron.

The pictures are sharp with good color and contrast. I was able to get the Tamron, a thin polarizer, a UV filter and a Tamrac medium MAS lens case for less than the price of the Canon 17-40L.

What I don't like:

-Focus is fast, but sometimes hunts in less than ideal lighting situations
-Focus ring does turn which is sometimes annoying
-Not 100% sure, but I think the Canon is better for FF cameras (if you plan on upgrading)

I think the Tamron is a better dollar for dollar value than the Canon. If you don't mind spending the extra money, Canon's features are a nice addition.

PS. If you use PSMAR at B&H, the Canon is $630.

[karusel]

I'm very demanding when it comes to picture quality, yet I took a zoom, even from a brand other than Canon. Wide angle isn't exactly my preferred territory (but I definetely DO need it everytime I'm shooting inside), I didn't really fancy paying virtually twice as much, and finally I like f/2.8 @ 17mm... Oh, I'm happy with what the lens delivers. It's not the sharpes glass I own, but very frankly, it's not bad.

[steved110]

If the Canon is too expensive, go for the Tamron - it has a good reputation and the so-called cons are minor compromises that save a lot of $
BUT if you can afford it I would definitely advise go for the 17-40L - it's a lovely lens, excellent build and image quality and I can honestly say, even living in overcast gloomy 'spring is a month overdue' England, I have never really missed a 2.8 aperture.....

[Jackal]

Hmmm...

Anyone know why the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 is cheaper than the 17-35mm F2.8-4?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=423714&is=REG&addedTroughType=search
[EDIT]Nevermind, it might be because it only fits crop cameras..

Can't wait to see these do a showdown:
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 ($449)
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 ($409)
Tokina 16-50mm f2.8 ($???)

Anyone know if somehow these were all tested against each other yet?

[CorruptedPhotographer]

How is this a "con" consideration aginst a lens that is not "weather-sealed" at all?

jjonsalt, the 17-40 L is weather-sealed. :cool::rolleyes::)

And if you mean why am I considering it a con against the tamron which is not weather-sealed. Well, its not technically fully weather-sealed unless you use a front filter. I personally only use a front filter when im in hazardous conditions like splashing water or sand gusting around in the desert.

[steved110]

jjonsalt, the 17-40 L is weather-sealed. :cool::rolleyes::)

And if you mean why am I considering it a con against the tamron which is not weather-sealed. Well, its not technically fully weather-sealed unless you use a front filter. I personally only use a front filter when im in hazardous conditions like splashing water or sand gusting around in the desert.

I use a Hoya Pro-1 super HMC UV filter on mine - mainly because I have a horror of getting finger prints on the front element of the lens. Which I am quite likely to do, being somewhat clumsy...;)
I'd much rather clean a filter than a lens.
Regarding weather sealing, my camera is not weather sealed, and quite frankly neither am I- so it's a non issue for me personally.

[jesusdelallata]

I owned the Tamron 17-35 and now I have the Canon 17-40L. The build on the Canon is nicer, it has USM, it's L, it's slower at the wide end, and it's much more expensive. When it comes to image quality, the Tamron is awesome - as good as the 17-40L in my opinion. I sold mine because I got a great deal on the Canon 17-40L, but I really miss the f2.8 on the wide end. Even at f2.8, the Tamron is nice and sharp. I highly recommend this lens.

[tbsteph]

Are you looking at these lenses to replace your 18-55? If so, neither have the reach on the long end. Have you thought about the Canon 17-85IS? This lens gives you a bit wider FOV than the 18-55 plus a significnt amount at the long end (It would reach your 75-300). Just an alternative.

[willg]

I have the tamron, and I see good results on full frame. There is some distortion at the edges at 17mm but show me a lens that doesn't have that problem. Corners are a little dark wide open, but when I'm shooting skies I usually shoot at f/11 or so and its not a problem at all

[_andrew]

Are you looking at these lenses to replace your 18-55? If so, neither have the reach on the long end. Have you thought about the Canon 17-85IS? This lens gives you a bit wider FOV than the 18-55 plus a significnt amount at the long end (It would reach your 75-300). Just an alternative.

I havent really looked into the 17-85 really, but thankyou for pointing that out and I certaintly will be checking out the prices on that camera.

Thankyou to everyone who replied to this thread. every post has been extremely helpful in my near future decision.

I would like to say that I am looking at upgrading camera's in the future (a year or two). So many good points have been listed throughout this thread! The to-be lens will be used for car photography, which makes me think whether I really need a large zoom range. Overall the Canon 17-40L definity wins but depending on how much money My. Tax gives back to me will determine which lens. I ensure you all I will put down what i purchased!

Until then though, the next addition will be the 70-200 f/4L (using the saved up money and b'day cash!). This will ensure I can do my sports photography and race track stuff for a while!

Thankyou all once again!

[I Simonius]

How is this a "con" consideration aginst a lens that is not "weather-sealed" at all?

I guess he was concerned about spending the extra ( not much thougth is it?)

[CorruptedPhotographer]

Simon, sorry I did not get it.

[adam*]

How about the Sigma 17-35 mm F2.8-F4.0 EX DG HSM?

[Stan43]

17-40. You will be glad you did.