I'm looking for a new wide angle zoom lens.

[md6040]

I almost bought the 17-40 L today, but stopped myself so I could do more research. This is my first post and I'm glad to join. Thanks for being here!

This lens will be mostly used for semi close portraits, using quickly setup lighting and often "rushed" situations. 40-60mm (film equivalent) is the range that'll get the most worked the most, but it'd be nice to have the option to shoot wider once in a while. The glass must be extremely sharp and striking.

Priorities are in this order:

1.) Sharpness (contrast, detail, vivid)

2.) Price

3.) Wide angle (like 16 vs. 17 vs 24, etc). Lowest on the list for me.


Here are some of the top candidates so far:

16-36 L - Price : $ 1,319.95

Apparently very sharp and wide. Great focal range that I'm looking for, just slightly wider than what I'd like. I little more than I wanted to pay, but I will if it's worth it. I don't see the 2.8 aperture making a big difference to me.

17-40mm f/4 Price: $ 674.95

Everything about this lens looks on paper makes me grab for my credit card, esp the focal length, L glass, and the PRICE!. The F4 aperture doesn't seem like a big deal right now.


24-70mm f/2.8L Price: $ 1,149.95

Everything about this lens looks absolutely delicious! So far, this one looks like the best for the job.


EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 Price: $ 349.95

eh. Just thought I'd add it for conversation. Great quality for the money.



Thanks for your help guys!

[defordphoto]

The 17-40 is the best bang for the buck. It's super sharp and battles head-tohead with the much more expensive 16-35. If the f/2.8 isn't a factor (as you state) then she's a winner. The 24-70 is an excellent lens. Just not wide enough in my opinion.

[psk4363]

Hi,

I've got the 17-40 and the 28-70 (now replaced by the 24-70). Both lenses are, due to the superb 'L' glass, extremely sharp.

I notice that you cite "rushed" situations so there's a plug for the faster 24-70 even when using studio flash. But re your priorities being 1) sharpness, and 2) price, then the 17-40 appears to be the front leader.

Good luck in your decision making.

Cheers,
Barry

[CyberDyneSystems]

Looks liek you've allready correctly narrowed the feild down to the two lenses that would suit you best..

17-40mm and 24-70mm

So the only real decision left is which focal length? Otherwise with either lens you can't go wrong. As for the 16-35mm f/2.8... again.. only spend the extra $$ if 2.8 is important.

[md6040]

Well, I just got back from the store.... with no lens.

After handeling and taking a few pictures w/ the 17-40, I just realized the lens isn't for me. I think I am going to need something that that zooms from 20+mm to over 60mm. I had pretty much made up my mind on the 24-70 after taking some pictures with that, but then he showed me this Tamron SP 28-75mm f/ 2.8 XR Di AF. Ew! "Tamron?" I said.. The guy working there (i've known him a long time and trust his judgement) told me the 28-75 Aspherical straight 2.8 is much sharper than the 17-40 and not too far away from the 24-70 L Canon. The part that got me was that the price is less than $400. what the hecK? The lens look cheap and ugly, only like I'd expect from a Tamron. However, it is MUCH smaller than either of the L lenses, esp the 24-70, which happens to be a friggin' mammoth of a lens!


This is confusing. Help/advice is needed.



Here are a few lame shots I made w/ the Tamron:

http://home.comcast.net/~md6040/Tamron.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~md6040/Tamron2.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~md6040/Tamron3.jpg

[drisley]

That lens gets alot of rave reviews here and elsewhere on the net.
It's supposedly very close in quality to the Canon 24-70L but for a fraction of the cost. It even comes with a 6 year warranty.
It isnt very wide though.

[jgbeam]

In six months, when the cost is a dim memory, which lens do you want on your camera - the Tamron or the Canon?

There are no excuses, only regrets.

Jim

[mttmrphy]

Can anyone comment on the Canon 17-35 2.8L?

I am in the same boat as md6040...

[Ballen Photo]

Well, I just got back from the store.... with no lens.

This is confusing. Help/advice is needed.

Here are a few lame shots I made w/ the Tamron:

http://home.comcast.net/~md6040/Tamron.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~md6040/Tamron2.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~md6040/Tamron3.jpg

Well, 1 & 2 looked fairly sharp, but I wasn't impressed with #3 unless this was a demonstration of shallow DOF.
I wouldn't rule this lens out, but I feel you should go back and wring it out more thoroughly while keeping notes on settings, focal points, etc.
Good luck on your decision. :shock:
........Bruce

[md6040]

#3 was shot @ f2.8 at around 50mm

[md6040]

In six months, when the cost is a dim memory, which lens do you want on your camera - the Tamron or the Canon?

There are no excuses, only regrets.

Jim


That's a good point.

[Canuck]

Another vote for the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L
Here's a thread with a pics I took: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=247568
...look at the one taken at F10

[Tom W]

I have the 24-70L and the 17-40L - both are excellent lenses. If you find that the 17 is a bit too wide, the 24-70 should suit you. 28-XX isn't too bad, except that 28mm on a 10D/DigiReb has roughly the same angle of view as a 45-50 mm lens on a full-frame or 35 mm camera. That 4 extra mm on the wide end is worthwhile. IMHO.

[Andy_T]

Just to add to the overall confusion ...

... did you take a look at the Sigma 12-24 lens?
Granted, it's not in the league of the Canon L lenses, as far as sharpness is concerned, but it sure is a true wide angle lens even with a 1.6 crop factor.

Here's one of the more favourable reviews:
http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6/a_Sigma_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.html

And, of course, Luminous Landscape's comparison of the 17-40 and the 16-35:
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml



Best regards,
Andy

[md6040]

I guess it's coming down to the 24-70 Canon or the 28-75 Tamron. Only an $800 difference! :oops:

[ohenry]

I can tell you that I certainly have no qualms about owning the Tamron 28-70 Di rather than the Canon 24-70L. (And I own 2 L lenses). I'm not comparing the Tamron to the Canon L, I'm just commenting that my Tamron takes great pictures! I am also in the market for a wide angle and am considering the Tamron 17-35 Di or the Canon 17-40L.

[unners]

why not get both the 17-40 and the tamron?
its still cheaper than the 24-70 and you get the best of both worlds, wide angle 17mm for landscape stuff and f2.8 and longer reach for inside work.
i have the 17-40 and love it. to be honest i don't really think i'd use the 24-70 focal length much on my 10d, its either too short or too long.
good luck
dave :D

[c0ntr0lz]

I guess it's coming down to the 24-70 Canon or the 28-75 Tamron. Only an $800 difference! :oops:

have you ever looked at the Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical Macro lens

i have this lens and it's quite nice for close shots
http://ctrlzproduction.com/images/show7_3_04/
these were taking with the lens
not sure if this is what you're looking for
i have some more test if you want to see better quality

[drisley]

Controlz, that link is dead...

[danphoto1]

I own both 24-70 Canon and 16-35 I love both thw 24 70 is still my favorite over evervthing else just spectacular for portraits aind lo light situations I don't like Siogma becaus for me they don't stand up. I had a 2.8 28 70 it diesd after a year 17-35 sigma doesn't metter correctly with my 1D or 10D lots of plaastic gears inside that just don't hold up over time. We have a local service place authorized by Canon & Nikon. He showed me the inner difference. I will sve and wait and go with Canon or Tamron. I do like the Sigma 14mm 2.8 Prime and th3 1.8 20MM. It all depend on what you are shooting. Canon l is the best all around glass and rarely if ever fails my ever changing needs. :D

[nosquare2003]

md6040,

From what I read, the 24-70L will be better for you. The autofocus speed is faster. (I estimate that the autofocus speed for Tamron is similar to EF24-85). And it has a better built.

Don't get me wrong, I have the Tamron and it's good. I think that the optics of 24-70L will be marginal better than Tamron (in fact, I compare it against my primes.) But it does have a good value and lightweighted. But I just think that you would like the 24-70/2.8L more.

[roanjohn]

why not get both the 17-40 and the tamron?
its still cheaper than the 24-70 and you get the best of both worlds, wide angle 17mm for landscape stuff and f2.8 and longer reach for inside work.
i have the 17-40 and love it. to be honest i don't really think i'd use the 24-70 focal length much on my 10d, its either too short or too long.
good luck
dave :D

Excellent advice!!!

Ro1

[nosquare2003]

Can anyone comment on the Canon 17-35 2.8L?

I am in the same boat as md6040...

It depends on how you use the lens. If you always stop down the lens, the 17-40/4L will be a better choice.

If you need a f/2.8 lens and have budget, 16-35/2.8L will be a better choice.

If you need a f/2.8 lens but with limited budget, I will vote this 17-35/2.8L. Please note that this lens will not focus as close as the 16-35 and 17-40. It may be an issue.

[md6040]

Would any of you guys use the 17-40 for waste-to-head potrait work from about 5-10 ft away?

[c0ntr0lz]

Controlz, that link is dead...

ok
http://ctrlzproduction.com/images/show%5F7%5F3%5F04/