Any advice on 17-35 Range

[andrew1]

Looking to buy 17-35, of course the Canon 17-40 is great, but what about Tamron 17-35 2.8 DI Lens, Tokina 19-35 (Fantastic Plastic),Tamron 17-35 3.5-4.5, and of course if money were no object Canon16-35 2.8.
Andrew

[roanjohn]

One thing I've learned from the few months I've been doing this SLR thing is to go for the best lens you can afford at the moment.

If money is no object, yes, the 16-35 f2.8 L should be a great lens.

OTOH, the 17-40 f4L is also an excellent lens for the money.....some might even give this lens a slighter edge from the 16-35.

I can't say anything about the Tamron and Tokina though I've heard some good things about the Tamron DI.

Ro1

[Hatem Eldoronki]

I was in the same boat as you last week. I drooled over the 16-35mm, but when I saw some sample pics, I wasn't quite impressed. I decided finally to go for the 17-40mm, for the following reasons:
1-Price.
2-Lesser Chromatic Abberation than the 16-35mm.
3-Sharper image @ 17mm (softer @ 40mm), compared to softer at 16mm (sharper @ 35mm).
4-The maximum aperature wasn't a huge issue for me, since I'll mostly use this lens outdoors/in adequate light indoors.
5-I really want the 14mm, so why spend on the 16-35mm that much now..
6-I prefer to stick w/ Canon lenses.

One thing to note: if you buy the 17-40mm lens, and intend to use it w/flash at the 17mm end, you will HAVE to get an external flash..

[DaveG]

Looking to buy 17-35, of course the Canon 17-40 is great, but what about Tamron 17-35 2.8 DI Lens, Tokina 19-35 (Fantastic Plastic),Tamron 17-35 3.5-4.5, and of course if money were no object Canon16-35 2.8.
Andrew

I do a lot of commercial and photojournalistic work and my 16-35 is almost glued to my camera. I mention this because if you do this type of work then the pain that comes from spending the extra money soon passes.

This focal length struck me as something that I wanted to put a lot of money into, since it would easlily be my most used lens. The Tokina's of the world would do the job optically, but I don't think that they'd hold up mechanically. The Canon 17-40 is also another answer but I wanted the extra one mm and the extra one stop.

In any case it'll depend on how YOU plan on using the lens. If you plan on using this focal length once in awhile, then the cheaper Brand X lens will be fine. If you don't need f2.8 then the 17-40 would be OK. But if you need speed and excellence then the 16-35 is the one.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I am very happy with the 17-40mm.. and I do not forsee ever upgrading to the 16-35mm

[Canuck]

I have a Canon 16-35mm F2.8L and I am stunned with the pics I am taking with it. I think the 24-70mm F2.8L is slightly better but just. It has a slightly more usable range and that was all I really used on a trip to Ireland. In fact that lens was first used in Dublin, Ireland on 16 Mar 04. The major drawback to the 16-35mm is the cost...almost $1400(from B&H)!

[2new]

I recently added the 17-40 to my bag and have been quite happy.

On a side note - I also bought a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 DI XR and it is also pretty damn good. The build quality seems very good where as the Canon feels as if it were built like a tank (superb). For the money, I was impressed with the Tamron since it was half the price.

Unfortunately I don't have the specific Tamron you are asking about but if $$ is an issue I would check out the 3rd party lenses. If you can afford the Canon I would go with the 17-40.

In addition, I always like to note that a local pro shop may be able to rent some of the lenses to you. There is nothing like spending some time with equipment before you buy it

[RDKirk]

Looking to buy 17-35, of course the Canon 17-40 is great, but what about Tamron 17-35 2.8 DI Lens, Tokina 19-35 (Fantastic Plastic),Tamron 17-35 3.5-4.5, and of course if money were no object Canon16-35 2.8.
Andrew

I've got the Tamron DI. In my comparison tests, it's equal to my Canon 24mm f2.8 at f2.8 (I only test wide open because I mostly shoot wide open) indoors; in an outdoor high-flare situation, it suffered the flare I expected a zoom to suffer, while the Canon prime suffered much less. It was also a hair better than my Sigma 20mm f1.8 with both at f2.8, and better than my Tokina 28-80mm ATX Pro at f2.8 and 28-35mm. Shooting a brick wall at 10 feet, some barrel distortion is visible at 17mm, it's free from distortion at the middle lenghts, and some pincushion is just barely visible (you have to put a straight-edge against it) at 35mm. But the distortion is far less at wide angle than the Tokina 28-80 ATX Pro.

According to Popular Photography's tests, it's equal to the Canon 17-40 and only a hair below the Canon 16-35, with better distortion figures than either Canon.

It's not as good as my Canon 50mm f1.8 Mk I. No zoom is.

Mechanically and cosmetically it's fully equal to the Canon mid-range lenses (those non-L lenses with steel mounts). I like the light weight (I'm getting old--in my younger days I thought nothing of hauling a brace of motor-driven Canon F1's with a bag of FD lenses all day long). It doesn't focus as quickly or as silently as the USM (what does?), but it's quicker than I am. I do NOT like the fact that the focus ring turns on autofocus; I have to learn to keep my fingers out of the way of it. But I guess that gives it kind of a full-time manual focus capability (which I never use).

I have found that none of the lenses I have, including the Canons, focus as surely on my DRebel as on my Elans. The Tamron is the same. What happens is that they all re-check the focus each time I half-press the release, and the refocus can vary quite significantly (as much as 25 percent of the actual distance). It's significant enough that with all zooms on my DRebel, I have to go back to my old manual practice of focusing at maximum focal length, then zooming while holding down the shutter release. With my Elan, it's fine. By the way, the optical results are just as good with the full-frame film Elan.

With the APS-sized sensor on a DRebel or 10D, the supplied lens hood is too short, being designed for a full frame camera. I discovered that by happy coincidence, the hood for the Tokina 28-80mm bayonets perfectly onto the Tamron, and it's exactly the right length for that use. The Tokina hood is available separately for a fairly steep US$39.95 at Adorama or B&H. I haven't yet re-run the flare tests with the longer hood, but I'll get around to it sooner or later.