Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 19 Aug 2013 (Monday) 11:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Lens comparison of the Canon 16 - 35 L II and the Tamron 17 - 35 2.8 - 4.0

 
Moonpix
Mostly Lurking
16 posts
Joined Feb 2013
     
Aug 19, 2013 11:57 |  #1

I have put together a lens comparison test of the Canon 16 - 35 L II and the Tamron 17 - 35 2.8 - 4.0. I was in the market for quite a while looking for a lens which would satisfy this zoom range. I initially tried the Canon 17 - 40 L but I just was not happy with the sharpness nor the maximum aperture of 4.0. I finally bit the bullet and dished out the $1350 for the Canon 16 -35mm L II. It was suppose to be the best in its class and the price reflected this.

I noticed in my research that the Tamron 17 - 35mm 2.8 - 4.0 had gotten few but good reviews. I had the opportunity to buy and return the lens within 30 days so I decided to buy it and do a lens comparison between the two lenses to see whether the extra $1,000 was worth it.

For the tests here, I shot both at the aperture of 2.8. I did this because I knew that this is where I would mostly be shooting and also where the weakness of a lens usually is (wide open). I shot the flowers and the sign both at 35mm @ f/4. No post processing such as brightness, sharpness, exposure, saturation, etc... was done. The were both shot in RAW and then converted to Jpeg.

Here are the results. Click on following link to view more (as well as larger) images and my own conclusion.

http://johncarnessali.​com/camera-lens-tests/2995 (external link)

IMAGE: http://johncarnessali.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Comparison-at-17mm-and-16mm-smaller-2-763x1024.jpg

IMAGE: http://johncarnessali.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Canon-16-35-compared-to-Tamron-17-35-2-761x1024.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
schmoelzel
Lord of the Holy Trinity
1,889 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2001
Location: London (Canada)
     
Aug 19, 2013 12:17 |  #2

Interesting read and comparison. The Tamron is a good lens. The question is often are the Canon L's worth the extra $$. For me, the answer has been yes but I have owned third-party lenses and they have been used. But in the long run, when I open my camera bag these days, only the L's remain. I checked out your blog/website and one thing I noticed straight away in the flower shot was that the colours and contrast with the Canon lens were more pleasing, at least to my eye! Also, the dreaded bokeh just looks better with the Canon, again only my opinion. I am on a quest right now for a UWA lens for a trip to Sri Lanka in the new year so your comparison has given me more options! Thanks.......




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K ­ Soze
Goldmember
Avatar
1,784 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3793
Joined Dec 2011
     
Aug 19, 2013 13:09 |  #3

There are times where my canon 16 to 35 is on my camera for days at a time. Great for anything urban very quick to focus and sharp. Worth the extra $$$ to me especially with CPS behind it.

I have had very very good Tamron's too, they have not been as sharp as my L glass but sometimes had a better look.

In any case I highly recommend a zoom lens with this effective focal length for FF or crop be in your bag when you are indoors or in a city.


I try to make art by pushing buttons

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,456 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 8240
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
     
Aug 19, 2013 13:17 |  #4

ThLots of barrel distortion on both. This is why, at wide angles, I prefer primes.

Just as an uninterested observer (uninterested in either lens), I am quite impressed with the Tamron - it appears to be a wee-bit sharper at it's max aperture. Still, I would rather see the lens apertures equalized for the test - how does the 16-35mm compare at f/4?


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, Sigma 35mm F/1.2, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
genjurok
Senior Member
537 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
Aug 19, 2013 17:05 |  #5

It seems that you've got a good copy of the Tamron 17-40. The copy I had before was terribly soft on the right side of the frame. Only until stopped down to like f/10 it becomes ok.


6D
Canon 17-40mm f/4L | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Sigma 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 100mm f/2
580 EX | 430 EX | Pixel King Pro wireless radio trigger and receiver (x2)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,069 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6154
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 19, 2013 17:25 |  #6

thanks for the review, I have always wondered how my cheapo 17-35 compares to the big guns (I dont think I've ever seen a proper review on this lens or even comparison to L's). I always thought it was weak wide open, and sufficient stopped down. I got my copy for $200 bucks, so I cant complain. The IQ has been great, but would like the lens to have weather sealing in case I get water splashed on it.

Other than that, been happy with the lens, and 2.8 is definitely handy, even if it's just at 17mm.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Moonpix
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
16 posts
Joined Feb 2013
     
Aug 23, 2013 06:42 as a reply to  @ Charlie's post |  #7

I am glad others have found it useful. Yes, I do think I have a good copy of the Tamron 17-35.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lelanie@those-photos
Hatchling
1 post
Joined Jun 2014
     
Jun 21, 2014 07:38 |  #8

I am contemplating buying the 16-35mm, waiting for a second hand one to pop up, but I'm not so sure about it anymore... What about rather buying a 20mm and a 35mm? They are both primes and they will cost half of the 16/35... Any commentary? Also has anyone done some architecture shoots with the 16/35?


http://www.those-photos.co.za (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,312 views & 0 likes for this thread
Lens comparison of the Canon 16 - 35 L II and the Tamron 17 - 35 2.8 - 4.0
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is KathKirk33
965 guests, 325 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.