3 WA lenses to choose from...

[quickben]

I don't know which one to go for. Here are my three finalists after the sale of my 18-55 ef-s and subsequent need for a WA lens.

Tokina ATX-Pro 17mm F3.5 prime
Tamron AF 17-35mm f2.8 - 4 Di zoom
Canon 17-40 F4.0 L zoom

The Canon is obviously an L lens and is therefore about an extra £200-300 ($375-550) over the other two. But if it is good enough, I'm prepared to wait another month or so :-)

I know the Tokina isn't very well known, but I've heard good things about it and it is a prime (so therefore better, optically, than a zoom ? ). The Tamron also has a bigger max aperture than the L glass (2.8 vs 4.0).

I'd appreciate any views, reviews or opinions you have.

Cheers

Gary.

[stckciv]

I have not used the Tokina 17, or Tamron 17-35, but I do have the 17-40 and i love it for wideangle. It is sharp wide, and I have been very impressed with it. I dont think you will complain about the quality!

Good luck, happy shooting!

[beech1]

I own the tamron lens and I use it for weddings and commercial shoots. Very nice and a very high quality lens.

Don

[CyberDyneSystems]

Not many posts on this forum regarding that Tamron,..

I love my 17-40mm f/4,. and there are a number of satisfied 17mm Tokina owners here as well if the Canon is too pricey for the budget.

[Anders Östberg]

Can't find the site now, but the test pictures I saw showed the 17-40 is (maybe surprisingly) sharper than the Tokina prime at all apertures. The Tokina is smaller of course, if that's important.

[dsze]

I have the Tokina 17 and I love it. I took a bit of a chance buying it even though I had read a little bit on it.... but I have been nothing but pleasantly surprised. I really can't imagine getting much sharper images from any lens. It is just incredible in my opinion. I think it is sharper than my 28-75XR Di, which I also think is great and I think it even rivals the 50mm 1.8 for sharpness. The colors are very good and there seems to be VERY little flare or CA from it. Its built as solid as any lens I've come across and it comes with a pretty nice little case too. ...and lens hood. I couldn't be happier with my Tokina 17. That said, I've never owned the 17-40L or the Tamron.

When I get home tonight, I'll see if I can post a few samples.

-daniel

[Citizensmith]

Can't find the site now, but the test pictures I saw showed the 17-40 is (maybe surprisingly) sharper than the Tokina prime at all apertures. The Tokina is smaller of course, if that's important.

Not that suprising, test have shown the 17-40 to be sharper than some decent Canon primes (notably the 20 and 24 f/2.8 lenses).

If its destined to become you walkaround lens I'd shy away from a prime unless you are really used to it. As for the other two, I've got a 17-40 and its great, but I've also heard good things about the Tamron lens.

Tamron really are pushing out some good glass nowadays. People swear by the 28-75 f/2.8 and their macro 90 is as good as the Canon 100.

[Redbird_xo]

I've been researching for a WA myself. I think you have a tough choice among the three you have listed. I know you are not asking for links to reviews. Hope the following might shed some light.

For the Canon: http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=799

For the Tamron: http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=842

I have yet to find a decent review on the Tokina.

Personally, I am going to get either the Tamron and Tokina because of the price/performance factor. I am sure the Canon is nothing short of being a great lens. It just costs more than I want to spend.

[drisley]

If you want to save some money, and dont need a zoom, get the Tokina 17ATX Pro.
I've tested the Tokina and the Canon 17-40L, and the Tokina is atleast as sharp as the Canon (I dont know where you saw a site that shows otherwise).
In addition, the Tokina beats the Canon when it comes to distortion, fringing, and lens flare control.
And believe it or not the Tokina is built atleast as well as the Canon, and the Tokina has a much smoother focusing ring. In addition the Tokina comes with a 3yr warranty (vs only 1 with the Canon). The Tokina is also very small, about the size of the Canon 50F1.8II lens.
It's all metal housing and feels like a brick. I've read nothing but positive reviews about the lens like here (http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_84291_3111crx.aspx).
There was a site with a great indepth review, but I think it's down.
I have many images, including these LARGE pictures taken with the lens.
Large#1 (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/20d/IMG_4032.jpg)
Large#2 (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/20d/MG_3379.jpg)

Even my 50F1.8 isn't much better than that. And those were taken nearly wide open.
These pictures (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/10222004)were taken in a dimly light gov't building at F4.

Don't get me wrong. The 17-40L is an amazing lens. But if you want a small, affordable, "built-like-a-tank" wide angle lens, there is nothing out there in the class of the Tokina.

[Anders Östberg]

I'm sorry but I can't find the comparison. From what I remember the Tokina and the 17-40 tested were close in terms of sharpness, with a slight edge to the 17-40. Color, contrast were also slightly better for the zoom, and CA quite a bit better. The difference wasn't huge though, at the smaller size and price tag, and very nice build quality the Tokina looks like a great buy.

[Cadwell]

I've used both the Tamron AF 17-35mm f2.8 - 4 Di zoom and the Canon 17-40 F4.0 L zoom. The Canon is the better lens, but there's not a lot in it. The Tamron is a very good lens for the price.

[drisley]

I'm sorry but I can't find the comparison. From what I remember the Tokina and the 17-40 tested were close in terms of sharpness, with a slight edge to the 17-40. Color, contrast were also slightly better for the zoom, and CA quite a bit better. The difference wasn't huge though, at the smaller size and price tag, and very nice build quality the Tokina looks like a great buy.

I could see the 17-40L being *slightly* sharper, but it would so close that it would not be noticable. I've printed 8x10's with the Tokina, and they look just as good as those taken with my 85F1.8 at that size (and the 85F1.8 is definately sharper than the 17-40L).
For me, the size, build, price, lens flare resistance and distortion were more important. Also, every test I've seen shows the CA to be much better on the Tokina. Perhaps that guy had a bad sample (which is rare with Tokina).

[Redbird_xo]

I've used both the Tamron AF 17-35mm f2.8 - 4 Di zoom and the Canon 17-40 F4.0 L zoom. The Canon is the better lens, but there's not a lot in it. The Tamron is a very good lens for the price.

May I ask if you have shot the Tamron at 17mm wide open? If yes, what do you think of the quality? And what kind of lighting condition did you use it at 17mm wide open?

Thanks.

[Cadwell]

May I ask if you have shot the Tamron at 17mm wide open? If yes, what do you think of the quality? And what kind of lighting condition did you use it at 17mm wide open?

Thanks.


Yes. The Tamron belongs to a friend of mine, I own a 17-40L. I was interested in how good or otherwise the Tamron was so we swapped lenses. I was shooting a 1D Mark II. We were indoors in a motor museum so a mixture of natural light and some overhead lighting. The lens was a little soft wide open, but nothing that some unsharp mask wouldn't sort out. By the time it was stopped down to f/4 the lens was very nice indeed. Good lens for the money.

On thing I should note about the Tamron though.... AF is slow. If AF speed matters to you then it's not the lens to go for.

[digitalmono]

I've voted before for the 17-40 f4 L, since I'm a lucky owner of one. I've been reading here complaints about the sharpness at low f numbers but, my opinion is: this lens is great!

[Redbird_xo]

On thing I should note about the Tamron though.... AF is slow. If AF speed matters to you then it's not the lens to go for.

Thanks for this important piece of info. Majority, if not all, of my shootings is on my toddler. I guess I will either have to convince her to stay for a sec or two for me or get a faster AF lens. I already know the answer. :lol:

[Citizensmith]

I've read nothing but positive reviews about the lens like here (http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_84291_3111crx.aspx).


But one of the first reviews there says its softer than the Canon 20, which is one of the weakest primes Canon makes. :)

My point really is that when assessing lenses on personal reviews try and take the broader picture. Sample variation can lead to one person getting a great lens and the next getting a lemon. Problem is that makes it harder to tell how good a lens is. Either track down as many reviews as possible and figure out, in general, if people like the lens. Or, go to a bricks and mortar store and try one yourself as your own opinion on it will be by far the most important.