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

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

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.......

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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?