Narrowed it down

[dwarfmcdougal]

Hey, sorry if this topic keeps getting kicked about, but I'm having a little trouble deciding between lenses once again. I posted a topic about a replacement "kit" lens a while back and I've finally got two I'm looking heavily into purchasing.

Choice 1: Canon 17-40 L f/4. Now, I'm no stranger to L series lenses. I realize they're the best Canon makes and are well built with good colors, sharpness, etc. But, what really gets me is the slightly slow aperture.

Choice 2: Tamron 17-50 2.8. I really like the fact that it has the f/2.8 (I always end up shooting in low-light) and costs a couple hundred bucks less than the Canon. Also, it has a longer reach. I played with it a bit at Wolf Camera, but I'm not sure how biased he was by recommending me the Canon instead of the Tamron.

I've read reviews on each one from different sites, and they all seem to say the Tamron is GOOD but the Canon is BETTER.

Is the L series really worth it even though it's a bit slower and has a shorter reach?

[terriyaki]

You mentioned that you shoot a lot in low light. Do you use bounce flash? If not then I think the choice is clear.

[dwarfmcdougal]

I do have a bounce flash; it's an Achiever. But I don't find myself using it a lot, though. It's kinda obtrusive and I'm not a fan of flash photography.

[august23]

Originally Posted by dwarfmcdougal

I do have a bounce flash; it's an Achiever. But I don't find myself using it a lot, though. It's kinda obtrusive and I'm not a fan of flash photography.

Then you answered your own question. The tamron would serve you better.

[RWE]

My wife and I wanted a short, light zoom for candid, carry/walkaround for shooting the kids and family activities. We are not crazy about flash for this type of photo - but flash sure has a place. I was really interested in the 17-40L, 17-85IS, 28-135IS, Tamron 17-50.

I just bought the Tamron 17-50 over the 17-40L and the others. It came down to excellent reviews (that has it just ahead of the 17-40L) and the f/2.8. I tested them at the shop, played around outside, borrowed, etc. The f/2.8 throughout is noticeably faster.

For what we wanted this lens choice to be - faster is better FOR US and what we intend to shoot with it. In addition to being fast it is sharp too! Now to get out of chores and on to photos!

[runninmann]

Originally Posted by dwarfmcdougal

Hey, sorry if this topic keeps getting kicked about, but I'm having a little trouble deciding between lenses once again. I posted a topic about a replacement "kit" lens a while back and I've finally got two I'm looking heavily into purchasing.

Choice 1: Canon 17-40 L f/4. Now, I'm no stranger to L series lenses. I realize they're the best Canon makes and are well built with good colors, sharpness, etc. But, what really gets me is the slightly slow aperture.

Choice 2: Tamron 17-50 2.8. I really like the fact that it has the f/2.8 (I always end up shooting in low-light) and costs a couple hundred bucks less than the Canon. Also, it has a longer reach. I played with it a bit at Wolf Camera, but I'm not sure how biased he was by recommending me the Canon instead of the Tamron.

I've read reviews on each one from different sites, and they all seem to say the Tamron is GOOD but the Canon is BETTER.

Is the L series really worth it even though it's a bit slower and has a shorter reach?

Do you plan to buy it there? The B&H price for the 17-40 is $120 USD less than their web price. Surprisingly (at least to me), the prices for the Tamron 17-50 are the same -- $449 USD

[Mr. Clean]

I'd get the Tamron in a heartbeat. A lot of comparo's really put those lenses in that FL range really close. I'd be ok with saving the coin, especially when I'd gain a full stop. There's no replacment for light!

[angryhampster]

Unless you're planning to go to a 5D or a 1D really soon, get the Tamron.