CANON EF 17-40 f/4L VS Tamron 17-35 f/2.8 Di LD

[elfyrulz]

which of the 2 lens is better ? :?

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Canon

[xuxu1]

which of the 2 lens is better ? :?

I dunno :shock:
but i´m going to stick to Canon !!! 8)

Regards
Ed

[cmM]

but i´m going to stick to Canon !!!
me too.

I'm buying it next week :lol: (hopefully)

[Cordell]

Canon

why is it better? What was wrong with the Tamron when you used it?

[dennykyser]

Over the years I have used Sigma and others with my Canon bodies, usually due to cost. when I was able to purchase the comparable EOS lens, was amazed at the sharpness I got out of the canon. Since those days, have never looked back,

Go Canon, that way you wont have to second guess yourself.
Besides looks better on your Canon Body.

[karusel]

To save time if you don't wish to read too much of my stuff, a quick answer: check google for comparisons on both lenses, check photographyreview.com, check pbase.com, gather as much info as you can and you decide if it's good enough for you or not.


Well, I think as far as zoom lenses go, Canon L's are unbeaten. That appears to be the common consensus.

I gather that some lenses, usually called 'gems' come very very close to L quality, sometimes they are practically identical , like the 70-200 EX Sigma, perhaps there might be a slight tonal difference. In other words, except for a really nerdy, obsessed expert it would be impossible to tell for each shot if it was made using Canon 70-200 2.8L or Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX.

Similarly, there is the Tamron 28-75 that is not very shy of the 24-70L, there are others too, Sigma 80-400 IS for example.

The thing is, it is all in our heads. L has made it to be a living legend and so it is a sin to think any other brand of EOS mount lens would ever surpass this.

Conclusion:
Get Canon L lens if:
-you can afford it without selling your kids to slavery
-your JOB requires top quality

Get equivalent third party lens if:
-you can't really justify spending at least 2x more than this third party lens
-you want good quality, but don't need to overkill that is really hard to notice anyway

I could buy Canon 24-70 but I bought the Tamron 28-75 instead. This way I still have enough to buy the 100-400L which is next on my list, and I do not wish to buy the 80-400 Sigma, because the price difference is just to small and also, the Canon retains its price better and is supposedly been tested to be one full light stop faster.

BTW, my 10D has gotten a crush on the Tamron 28-75, they're inseparable! :oops:

[timmyquest]

I generally agree with everything you say karusel, but i love the last part of the thread.

In the end, if you could chose between sigma or canon, most will get the canon. There are reasons for this that sometimes go beyond simply the optics.

[Cadwell]

In the end, if you could chose between sigma or canon, most will get the canon.

Not always... I have the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and the Sigma APO 120-300mm f/2.8 EX HSM. They are both superb, but if some really unkind person forced me to keep only one of them.... I'd keep the Sigma.

[Cadwell]

BTW, my 10D has gotten a crush on the Tamron 28-75, they're inseparable! :oops:

:lol: The Tamron is a nice little thing. I have one and although it's not a focal length I use that often, it's always a pleasure to use and the images never disapoint.

[timmyquest]

In the end, if you could chose between sigma or canon, most will get the canon.

Not always... I have the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and the Sigma APO 120-300mm f/2.8 EX HSM. They are both superb, but if some really unkind person forced me to keep only one of them.... I'd keep the Sigma.

I'd take the sigma too, but these two lenses arnt quiet the same. I'd much rather be at 300 f/2.8 then 300 f/5.6...

Thats why one is 2 grand, and one is 1 grand

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Canon

why is it better? What was wrong with the Tamron when you used it?

I never used the Tamron. I only trust Canon, and think that the quality is unmatched. I've seen samples -but I apologize for not remembering where- that convinced me before I bought my 17-40mm.
I was actually torn between the 17-40mm and the 16-35mmL, and most of the comparisons I saw gave the 17-40mm higher marks for sharpness at the wide range (17mm) than the 16-35mm (which is sharper at 35mm than the other lens at 40mm).
So I guess I only trust Canon stuff..especially if it's an "L", Canon's only unmatched element in the world of photography.

[Haifidelity]

I think the real key between the two is performance wide open, which the Tamron us 'apparently' (I say that because I've never tested it) a tad bit soft, whereis the Canon 17-40L still performs good.

Of course, if you shoot mostly landscapse at F/8.0+, then it shouldn't even matter.

[gcogger]

A fairly predictable set of responses - whenever someone asks for a comparison of a Canon lens to another make, lots of people recommend the Canon even though they've never tried the alternative.

From what I've seen from various comparisons and reviews, the 2 lenses are similar in quality - some people prefer one and some the other. The Tamron is soft at f/2.8, but it's a lot better than the Canon at that aperture ;-)

[RichardtheSane]

I have the canon 17-40L and the Tamron 28-75 Di... I don't have bot lenses you are asking about because that would be false economy... si I will compare to another tamron lens...

They are both as sharp as each other... I really can't tell the difference in sharpness. I find the Canon to be a little more contrasty which is nice.

THe steal for me where the canon floors the tamron is the feel and build quality. WHen I pick up the 10D with the tamron it fells like it does the job.

I pick it up with the 17-40 on then it feel like I'm going to enjoy how well it does the job. The lens feels so much better, focuses much quicker and has full time MF.

Just my ramblings

[Lesmac]

Most of my photography is done in the Yorkshire Dales, and bouncing around the Dales means I need a robust lens, I find the 17-40L lens stands up to this punishment very well, whereas the Sigma and tamron I had just couldn't cut the mustard.
And it goes without saying, the canon is a sweet lens across all it's apertures.

My two pennorth.

http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

[RichardtheSane]

Lesmac, Just had a look at your gallery - great shots there!

[Lesmac]

I also had a browse around yours, some pretty impressive work, and a neatly designed site.

Les

[Danny Boy]

I recently purchased the 17-40mm and I am not disappointed. The lens takes great pics and it feels very sturdy in my hands. No regrets in the purchase.

[RikWriter]

Most of my photography is done in the Yorkshire Dales, and bouncing around the Dales means I need a robust lens, I find the 17-40L lens stands up to this punishment very well, whereas the Sigma and tamron I had just couldn't cut the mustard.


In what way, exactly? Did the Sigma and Tamron lenses break?

[msvadi]

I don't have the Tamron 17-35 or Canon 17-40, but if I had to choose one, I would go with Canon. The price difference is not that big, they both are of the same order (it's nothing like the price difference between the Tamron 28-75 and Canon 24-70 L).

If you don't need f/2.8 on wide angle, go with Canon. I tried 17-40 L once, it's very impressive. Even if the picture quality is the same between two, still, build quality, fast focusing are worth it. Besides, Canon keeps it resale value better.

[JMan]

Just 3 weeks ago I was weighing between Tamrom and Canon (did have Tamron 28-75 Di and love it). Local dealer did not have it in stock, but had the Canon...bought it...no need to look back.

...same week went and bought Canon 50mm 1.8 and week after that Canon 70-200 F4....now lurking 1.4 extender....

Gone mad :shock:

Needles to say that I really like the Canon wide angle + the other purchaces that I made....

- JJ -

[blinking8s]

i just like to look cool...canon bag, canon lenses, canon cameras...the EOS strap...the digital strap...im workin on a canon t-shirt now too

:lol:

[SENster7]

I have the Tamron 28-75, and I love it, it's light, pretty sharp wide open, and reasonably priced at $349. I thought I would be disappointed with the Tamron wide open, but with a little USM it's sharp enough for me. Will I tell you that it is better than the Canon 24-70L? No, it's not better than the 24-70L, but it is lighter, cheaper, and with a little bit of USM, it will do you just fine for that 28-75mm range! Lighter to me is important since this lens has been my "walk around" lens, my neck would fall off my body if the 24-70L was my "walk around" lens, not to mention other parts of my body missing if I were to buy the 24-70L right now LOL...Maybe some day?
I have a few galleries where I just shot with the Tamron 28-75, you can find them mixed in with the other galleries here www.pbase.com/aferr

[jalafer]

Lesmac, Just had a look at your gallery - great shots there!

I also visited Lesmac gallery and I'm really impressed with those pictures. The quality is awesome.
Lesmac. Would it be possible that you share with us your knowledge ? I think I could learn a lot if you explain your workflow. Could it be possible?

[Liang]

Is Tamron 17-35 with USM ?

[RDKirk]

which of the 2 lens is better ? :?

Modern Photography tested the Tamron as the slightly better lens.

In my comparisons, the image quality of the Tamron is slightly better, and has considerably less distortion than the Canon. This is not a surprise--computerized lens designing is a great equalizer.

However, the Canon has the better feel, the faster and quieter focusing, the enviro-sealing, and a focusing ring that doesn't turn as it autofocuses. That's where the extra money is going.

But it's also quite heavy, which makes a difference to me in my middle age, carrying two bodies and two-to-seven lenses, in most cases.