maybe i'm comparing apples and oranges but I have a question about my wide angle

So I have the 17-35mm tamron and its very sharp and has been good to me, but when I look at pictures from my 70-200 f/4L they just pop out. the colors and contrast are just much better it seems. Now, is this just the difference between telephoto and wide angle, maybe the backgroud blur is helping the image to 'pop' or would I get better colors/contrast from the 17-40L? The tamron is as sharp as I could ask for by the way.

No it's the glass in the Tamron, I have the same issue with my Sigma, my 75-300mm EF is brighter and has better color then my Sigma over the same focal ranges. It's the glass and coatings Sigma uses. Lesson learned should have went Canon, but I was cheap and for the money you save you tolerate the compromises.

If you swapped the Tamron out for a 17-40L the pop and color would return. These are the compromises we make for 3rd party glass. The L's are special, but you pay for it too.

Remember the 3rd party fits your SLR but it wasn't made specifically for your SLR system. That same Tamron has to fit a Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, etc.

damn, now I'm tempted. I've seen a few comparisons between the two lenses but they didn't look so different

Don't disparage all 3rd party lenses, some of the higher quality Tokina/Tamron/Sigma lemses rate as good or better than Canon Ls and much cheaper.... you just have to choose carefully..

Well the list of surpassing lens is small I reckon. Not saying 3rd party lenses don't bring exceptional value to the kit. My Sigma does very very well for what it is. The other question is, what lens mount version as well. You have to be careful I've not come across a test of 70-200 f2.8 Sigma's on all the various lens mount's that might be a nice comparison, but are you comparing the mount's then or the Camera?

Let's face it the Sigma's and the Tamron's have a hard job, make lenses that work on all cameras.

You can fix a lot in post processing though, so don't kick yourself over buying a very expensive lens if you can't afford it and you are still somewhat happy with your wide angle.

While "L" glass certainly is very good, one little point that I haven't noticed being mentioned here, is the comparison being between a wide angle zoom, and a telephoto zoom. And the point is, you might ask? Wide angle lenses have much greater inherent DOF, meaning more area front to back being in focus. A telephoto lens on the other hand, has a propensity towards having a shallow DOF, which will definitely go a long ways to making the in focus subject "Pop".
-Bruce

I found that the wide angles are not generally as sharp as the 70-200 L family. Maybe it's just harder to make a sharp wide angle, but the 17-40 I tested didn't have the same pop as the 70-200's either.

Malcolm

Well you also need to have a very small f-stop to show as much sharpness in the same amount of area, because with a telephoto everything is much more compressed while a wide gives you more of a bigger view, so if you are shooting at say, f/2.8 or f/4, a lot isn't going to feel crisp.

You don't exactly pick a fair comparison with the Sigma you own... compared to the list of Ls!

Show me a wide angle that is close to the 70-200 f4 and I'll eat it. The 17-40 may be better than what you have, who knows until you try, but it will only make your shot better saturated or sharper or all that guff. Won't give a better photo IMHO. I like the 17-40 a lot but I'd stick with what you have personally. It's a good lens that seems to have served you well. Mr B Photo seems a sensible chap so I'd believe him

Never would I put mine up against an L, it's a great light weight general purpose travel zoom, doesn't have to be up to L standards. It's as sharp as any consumer zoom for the range, however, even the kit lens has better color per my tests. The coating on the front element of my Sigma makes all shots look darker by comparison.

But it has it's points, build quality meant a lot to me for this lens, for what it is it's fine. A 17-85 IS would be a better lens, but it won't have the reach or the low price (<$300). It's a super zoom, everyone knows their short falls especially their owners.

The Sigma spends alot of time on my 300D even with the L's hanging around my house, you don't need the best glass to take the best picture. The Sigma's small and light sometimes you value that more, well I do at times.

But I'll bet you any amount of money the new Nikon DX 18-200 VR blows them all away (consumer travel zooms). If you want the travel combo I think that's going to be the lens to have. And a very high OE price to boot too. Now I'm way off topic.

sharpness is nearly as good as my 70-200, its just the colors sometime seem not quite as good. I thought maybe its exposure, because with telephoto you have a much smaller range to meter so I would imaging they provide better exposure

I was shooting f/5.6 to f/11 on the 17-40. At f/5.6 the hyperfocal distance at 20mm is about 3.7 meters on the 350D, so focus wasn't the issue. The edges in particular softened up.

In comparison the 70-200 f/4 is very sharp and poppy wide open.

An L is a top lens though. They are known for sharpness generally, but also their saturation, contrast, and good color as well.

But as I mentioned earlier, with a telephoto, it compresses everything, and I think that's part of the reason its easier to get sharper images. But I could be wrong.