Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 or Canon 17-40L ?

I don't shoot super wide very often. The 70-200 range plus 28-75 tamron are on my 5D 80% time. The new lens will get occasionally use, although it would be nice if the focal range is flexible.

As I read on internet, the 17-40L seems to have two advantanges compared to the Tamron 1) better flair resistance 2) 5mm longer

The Tamron f/2.8 aperture at 17mm is nice, but not that important. Also it's said that it's a bit sharper in the center than 17-40L.

On the other hand, the Tamron can be had for less than half of the cost of 17-40L . Both used, the 17-35 costs around $300 CAD, while 17-40L normally is around $600~700 CAD range.

Anybody with experience with the two lenses. Your thoughts please?

Thanks!

I don't think anyone would pick the Tamron unless they couldn't afford the Canon. That said, it's a pretty good lens (especially stopped down) but there's a reason it's cheaper.

As far as image quality I could not see much difference between the two and since I do not shoot UWA that often, I decided to save the money and keep the Tamron. I think all and all it is a pretty good lens.

On ff the tamron has the softest corners of any lens I've ever used. I mean it really jumps out at you. On a crop it's a very good lens.

Funny, the corners on mine are sharp once it is stopped down.

I owned the Tamron and sent it back within a few days. It was horribly soft and corners were bad as well. 17-40L was much better. Just my experience.