Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vs Canon 17-40 f4L

[jesusdelallata]

Has anyone done any comparisons between these two lenses? Just wondering if it's worth getting the Tamron for wedding work. Anyone using the Tamron 17-50 for weddings? Thanks.

[AccidentalArt]

I'd like to see as well. Having the same delimna.

[Eplez]

(Note: Only had a dSLR for one month :p so maybe I'm just saying obvious stuff :oops:, but here goes)

I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2,8 and have to say I'm very pleased with it. I haven't used it for "wedding work" though, but going in one in three weeks and I doubt it will give me any problems.

The two things I guess you should have in mind is is (as you probably know), the focal length and the aparture. With the focal range of 17-40mm, you can't sit on the first row and snap away :p. Since the Tamron has f/2.8 (and 10mm more focal length) vs f/4 (I'm not sure if it's other pros with the Canon lense since it's an "L") I would pick the Tamron since it would be easier if the church isn't well lit and you don't have to sacrifice so much iso/aparture/shutter speed compared to the Canon.

If this was too obvious/not the answer you were looking for, I'm sure a "pro" will give you some more pointers.

Good luck on your shoot :) Let us know what you decided and how it went :)

[René Damkot]

Don't know the Tamron, but if the lens is useable fully opened, then I'd say it's of more use then the 1 stop slower and 10mm shorter Canon. I would try it to see if you are going to miss out on image quality if you trade.
Then again: motion blurr will loose you more IQ ;)

[EOS_JD]

My Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 gives the Canon a good run for tyhe money. I'd expect the 17-50 to be even better.

[The Hardcard]

Photozone has image quality measurements (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html) of all the lenses you are considering. They are not real world tests, but they give you an idea of about where you will stand.

Given that almost everybody so far in this thread has 1.6 crop cameras, I strongly recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 IS if you can at all swing the price. It has higher image quality than the others considered here and IS. Unless you plan on roaming around with a tripod or monopod for candids (it can be done, but boy is it extra work, I bought a tripod, but gave up trying to use it after 20 minutes. I know I need to develop better tripod skills), I really, really suggest IS. It makes an enormous difference.

I did a wedding a few weeks ago. (http://www.pbase.com/thehardcard/june_23_wedding&page=all) It was before I got the 17-55, so I rented the 17-85 IS. I can testify to the benefits of having f/2.8 also. Even you you shoot stopped down, the bigger max aperture will aid greatly in low-light focusing.

I tried to use my 70-200 f/2.8 IS for more of the shots, but it is hard controlling the needed space if you have a lot of people in a small area.

[Reminisce]

Oh boy does this lens look yummy, and on paper it sounds even better in every way to the 17-40L. But of course, what it boils down to is image quality, and I think the tamron is too young right now for us to know for sure if its better than the 17-40L. But at a price of $449, and having more glass elements inside than the 17-40L, it sounds like a winner to me.

[jesusdelallata]

Yeah...I'm having a tough time with this one. I love my 17-40L. I'd hate to give it up, but I will give it up for the Tamron 17-50 if it turns out to be a better lens.

It's tough...giving up an "L" lens. Anyone else do this before?

[ccp900]

maybe you wanna wait for the tokina 16-50 2.8 hehehe

[cc10d]

I recently got the Canon EFS 17-55 f2.8 IS and can say that it is worth the price if you can swing it. It performs extremely well! Good f2.8 performance. IS rock solid. IQ comperable to or beats a lot of L glass. I love the thing. And I do own L glass in this range.

[papucla10]

I think the Sigma is a more reliable lens as far as what the reviews say. I find people get exited when they talk about the Sigma 17-70 I don't find the same reactions from people talking about the Tamron 17-50

[abat]

I've had my 17-50 for about 2 months now. My reasons for it over the 17-40 were:
. 10mm greater reach
. 1 stop brighter
. much more compact
. good build quality
. pairs nicely with my 70-200 f/4L as an everyday/travel combo
And it takes some nice sharp, colourful pictures.

[ed rader]

I've had my 17-50 for about 2 months now. My reasons for it over the 17-40 were:
. 10mm greater reach
. 1 stop brighter
. much more compact
. good build quality
. pairs nicely with my 70-200 f/4L as an everyday/travel combo
And it takes some nice sharp, colourful pictures.

weight

17-40 = 17.5 oz
17-50 = 15.3 oz

length

17-40 = 3.8"
17-50 = 3.2" (plus this lens extends while the canon doesn't)

ed rader

[davidfig]

Well the tamron is a DiII, therefore a APS-C only lens. For me, I will shy away.

[abat]

weight

17-40 = 17.5 oz
17-50 = 15.3 oz

length

17-40 = 3.8"
17-50 = 3.2" (plus this lens extends while the canon doesn't)

ed rader

Hey, not fair - we only understand metric down here:smile:. Suffice to say it's "more compact" ...... and I'm happy with my choice.

[Stan43]

I will get the Tamron 17-50 today, I plan on using it for a weding on 9/8 probably most for group shots.

[jcpoulin]

I have heard this before..."more glass elements"...Why does this increase performance??? As someone who doesn't understand the mechanics of light...Why does light traveling through more glass increase performance?? It seems it would be opposite.

[LightRules]

TDP review is up now: http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx

[Jon]

I have heard this before..."more glass elements"...Why does this increase performance??? As someone who doesn't understand the mechanics of light...Why does light traveling through more glass increase performance?? It seems it would be opposite.Each element has its own characteristics, how much it'll bend the light. A single element won't bend all wavelengths of light the same amount; by using different types of glass, the light at the film/sensor plane can all be brought to the same plane of focus, so you don't get colour aberrations. The additional elements make more precise control of this, especially on zoom and wide angle lenses, possible. They also make control of various types of distortion easier. So a lens with more elements may absorb slightly more light, but it'll put the light that passes through all the glass in the right place.

[jcpoulin]

Thank you for explanation, Jim

[Wilt]

And of course, when you have more corrective elements, it is better to have them arranged into fewer Groups, from the standpoint of minimizing reflective air-glass interfaces.