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 11 Nov 2007 (Sunday) 18:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 17-40L Vs Tamron 17-50

 
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,244 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 504
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Dec 12, 2007 10:37 |  #31

Tony-S wrote in post #4297582 (external link)
Had the 17-40L. Got rid of it for its softness at f/4, which many have reported with it. See this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …31&highlight=to​ny-s+17-40

you got rid of it because it was a canon and you mention at every opportunity it's softness at f4 because it's not a sigma.

i've had two copies of the 17-40L and both are very sharp @ f4.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 204
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Dec 12, 2007 11:00 |  #32

Gee, Ed, is that why I own four Canon lenses? I'm not a brand loyalist - I simply buy the lenses that work best for me.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,244 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 504
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Dec 12, 2007 11:08 |  #33

Tony-S wrote in post #4490112 (external link)
Gee, Ed, is that why I own four Canon lenses? I'm not a brand loyalist - I simply buy the lenses that work best for me.

mac...sigma...homer.

fight the power baby :D.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
303villain
Senior Member
Avatar
614 posts
Joined Jun 2006
Location: New York, Miami, & Denver
     
Dec 12, 2007 11:38 |  #34

Im disagreeing with alot of the people here. I had the Tamron for a long time and liked it but I have since switched to the L. The image quality I see is MUCH better now, as are colors and contrast. Focusing is leaps and bounds better and so is build quality. I dont have any sharpness issues at F4 on my copy. I think the extra cost is def. worth it, I wish I would have done that from the get go.

Cant argue with 2.8 though, that I wish I did have.


www.danapennington.net (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,244 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 504
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Dec 12, 2007 11:46 |  #35

303villain wrote in post #4490386 (external link)
Im disagreeing with alot of the people here. I had the Tamron for a long time and liked it but I have since switched to the L. The image quality I see is MUCH better now, as are colors and contrast. Focusing is leaps and bounds better and so is build quality. I dont have any sharpness issues at F4 on my copy. I think the extra cost is def. worth it, I wish I would have done that from the get go.

Cant argue with 2.8 though, that I wish I did have.

the 17-40L is a gem of a lens and it will fit all canon DSLRs. i just bought my second copy and i love it as an UW on my 5d and a normal zoom on my 30d.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
islandboy
Member
32 posts
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere in the sun
     
Dec 12, 2007 12:03 |  #36

I have the 17-50 and the image quality is very good, sharp at 2.8 and fairly light to walk-around with. The biggest reason I see to go with the Tamron is the 2.8. If you want to shoot indoors, the F4 is just not fast enough for indoor shooting in anything other than moderate to bright light. Even the 2.8 is too slow in some settings but much better than a 4. So if you want something you can use indoors and out I'd go with the Tamron.


Canon EOS 40D, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS, Speedlite 430EX II, G5, G11 with underwater housing, Powershot A95 with underwater housing, SD850is, Vixia HF S100

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JCH77Yanks
Goldmember
Avatar
1,291 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 13
Joined Mar 2007
Location: BKNY
     
Dec 12, 2007 12:13 |  #37

303villain wrote in post #4490386 (external link)
Im disagreeing with alot of the people here. I had the Tamron for a long time and liked it but I have since switched to the L. The image quality I see is MUCH better now, as are colors and contrast. Focusing is leaps and bounds better and so is build quality. I dont have any sharpness issues at F4 on my copy. I think the extra cost is def. worth it, I wish I would have done that from the get go.

Cant argue with 2.8 though, that I wish I did have.

When I get my 17-40, I plan to add a fast wide angle prime to compliment my 50 1.8 a couple of months after that.


Joe Halliday
7D | XT | 10-22 | 24-105 f/4L | 28 1.8 | 50 1.4 | 85 1.8 | 580EXII | 430EXII | 430EX | Flickr (external link)| 500px (external link) |
Dial "M" for Manual.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gcogger
Goldmember
2,554 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2003
Location: Southampton, UK
     
Dec 12, 2007 14:56 |  #38

I'd love to see a direct comparison between these 2 lenses to see if there really is a difference in colour/contrast. It would need to use the same camera, settings, and the same lighting. Preferably a nice landscape in sunny conditions.

I had the same dilemna a long time ago when I was comparing the (old) Sigma 18-50/2.8 with the Canon 17-40/4. I'd just about been convinced to get the Canon for its better colour/contrast until I saw a direct comparison between the lenses as described above. The superiority of the Canon in that case proved to be a myth, as the Sigma was every bit as good.


Graeme
My galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
California4Life
Member
Avatar
218 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2007
Location: LA
     
Dec 14, 2007 15:06 |  #39

There is something to be said about the construction of a lens as well... You can't even compare the construction and physical durability of the Canon 17-40L to the Tamron 17-50... Sure, nobody plans on dropping their lens, or getting it spashed with water, but when/if it ever happens, you'd be happier with the Canon, trust me.

The Tamron is not "crap". It is a fine lens. But for my eye, the 17-40 is much better and that's why I bought it....

Brand loyalty? No, I just get the best glass I can afford. Canon makes the best glass for my money.


macdanzigphotography.c​om (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,244 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 504
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Dec 14, 2007 15:31 |  #40

gcogger wrote in post #4491890 (external link)
I'd love to see a direct comparison between these 2 lenses to see if there really is a difference in colour/contrast. It would need to use the same camera, settings, and the same lighting. Preferably a nice landscape in sunny conditions.

I had the same dilemna a long time ago when I was comparing the (old) Sigma 18-50/2.8 with the Canon 17-40/4. I'd just about been convinced to get the Canon for its better colour/contrast until I saw a direct comparison between the lenses as described above. The superiority of the Canon in that case proved to be a myth, as the Sigma was every bit as good.

i've owned several L lenses including the 17-40L. i've also owned three tamron lenses.

the color and contrast is different but for some -- especially the bargain hunters -- may not be that noticeable.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike55
Goldmember
Avatar
4,206 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
Dec 14, 2007 16:03 |  #41

gcogger wrote in post #4491890 (external link)
I'd love to see a direct comparison between these 2 lenses to see if there really is a difference in colour/contrast. It would need to use the same camera, settings, and the same lighting. Preferably a nice landscape in sunny conditions.

I had the same dilemna a long time ago when I was comparing the (old) Sigma 18-50/2.8 with the Canon 17-40/4. I'd just about been convinced to get the Canon for its better colour/contrast until I saw a direct comparison between the lenses as described above. The superiority of the Canon in that case proved to be a myth, as the Sigma was every bit as good.

There was a photo comparison on the net I found which was one of the main reasons I chose the 17-40. It showed a rooftop shot of a city, with a shopping mall right below, and rooftops stretched out beyond. While the 17-50 shot was very nice, there was something about the 17-40 image that had a more 3D effect. I'm guessing it's a combination of micro contrast and high saturation on the edges of objects. The 17-50 is a really nice lens. If I didn't have the 17-40, I would probably have that or the 17-70 Sigma.


6D | 70D | 24-105 L IS | 17-40 L | 300 F4 L IS | 50 1.8 II | 1.4x II | LR5 | HV30 | bug spray | wilderness
Gallatin National Forest, Montana (external link)/Lassen Volcanic NP Campgrounds (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pasukun
Goldmember
Avatar
1,388 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: US
     
Dec 14, 2007 16:41 |  #42

Since you are considering Tamron 17-50.. I safely assume that you have a crop camera.
The only merits to go with 17-40L would be.. future compatibility with FF sensor(if you ever decide to upgrade) and superior L quality build with USM.
However, you have a crop camera at this very moment (assuming).. so take advantage of it.
Tamron 17-50 is somewhat $200 cheaper, has better FL range, has fixed f/2.8, has lighter weight and just as sharp if not sharper.
If you decide to go with 17-40L.. I really hope that you have a plan to upgrade your camera to FF within next 6 months..
Otherwise.. well.. crap.. its your money. :)


"the things we touch have no permanence.. as there is nothing we can hold onto in this world.. only by letting it go can we truly possess what is real.."

My Gears

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike-DT6
Goldmember
Avatar
3,963 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Oct 2007
Location: The Jurassic Coast, Dorset, England.
     
Dec 14, 2007 16:54 |  #43

I've just been reading this thread with great interest. Am I imagining things or is the 17-40mm L all of a sudden substandard and unsuitable as a walkabout lens?

I was under the impression it was top class for both image quality and build quality, whilst also being a good walkabout lens.

Mike


Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jcjames
Senior Member
Avatar
276 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Kuala Lumpur MY
     
Dec 14, 2007 17:11 |  #44

California4Life wrote in post #4505361 (external link)
There is something to be said about the construction of a lens as well... You can't even compare the construction and physical durability of the Canon 17-40L to the Tamron 17-50... Sure, nobody plans on dropping their lens, or getting it spashed with water, but when/if it ever happens, you'd be happier with the Canon, trust me.

The Tamron is not "crap". It is a fine lens. But for my eye, the 17-40 is much better and that's why I bought it....

Brand loyalty? No, I just get the best glass I can afford. Canon makes the best glass for my money.

Can not agree with you more... just take a few shots to decide based on IQ... Who wants to pay more just beacuse of brand loyalty? It does not make sense... Do not think Tamron would do their current pricing if their lenses are generally better than other brands. ;)


James C
"I've finally got my SOUL back through Photography?"
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jcjames/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,244 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 504
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Dec 14, 2007 17:21 |  #45

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #4505929 (external link)
I've just been reading this thread with great interest. Am I imagining things or is the 17-40mm L all of a sudden substandard and unsuitable as a walkabout lens?

I was under the impression it was top class for both image quality and build quality, whilst also being a good walkabout lens.

Mike

the 17-40L is making a comeback...it just came back into my kit :D!

here are some samples ... converted to jpeg from raw with no PP.

@ f4.......

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME


100% crop.....

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME


@ f5.6.....

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME


100% crop.....

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME


ed rader

http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

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

14,478 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 17-40L Vs Tamron 17-50
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 Telescopus
1184 guests, 309 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.