Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or Canon EF17-40 f4L ?

Which one should I buy?

I have 300D, EFs 18-55 kit lens, EF50 f1.4, EF50 f1.8, EF28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS.

I am not professional. I usually help my friends to shoot wedding, shoot my family in indoor theme park.

My main concern is the image quality. I don't mind the build quality.
Price is not an issue to me. I can afford Canon EF17-40 f4L.
Is Tamron image quality on par to Canon or better?
Is f4 fast enough for indoor like wedding dinner?

EF28-135 is not wide enough for wedding.
EFs 18-55 is ok but image not sharp enough to me.

I have not used Tamron but had the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and now bought the 17-40.Tha Canon is better in terms of IQ but f4.If low light photography is needed then you are going to be better(but not enought)with f2.8.The way to go is a low light prime like 20 1.8.

I would (and have) got the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Its very sharp plus you would get a better DOF blur with it.
I also have the canon 24-105L that is also f/4.0 and it does make a difference to speed as well.
This was shot hand held with my 17-50 using a flash

simple as this...

If you ever plan to go to full frame or use film, get the 17-40L. If you don't, get the 17-50 Tamron.

Tamron, it's faster, maybe sharper, has more reach, and cheaper.

Eh. If you swap gear to go full frame, the 17-50 is a great lens to send along with the body. Love mine.

C

whats this 17-50 tamron run? and is it a constant 2.8 throughout the focal range?

I replaced my 350D with a 400D and with it, in order to not spend even a penny more, i had to sacrifice the kit lens, wich i never used anyways, but id like to recover that focal range..

So i need a 10mm+ ro somewhere the 50mm range, zoom, and so far, the tamron is sounding the best

I had my mind set on the Tamron 17-50 until I found a 17-40 for a KILLER price - too good to refuse and for that price I can deal with f4 and 10mm shorter.

the AF seems to be more accurate than the Tamron that I had bought and returned - in the same scene the 17-40 has a faster shutterspeed (more light into the lens) than my 10-22, both at the same settings.

The Tamron's a good lens, though, provided you can get it to AF properly on your camera.

How's the Tamron wide open? Is it sharp?

It's pretty sharp wide open, but as with all lenses improves if you stop down to about f4 or f5.6

I think I will get 17-40, because it can use on my old film body, and I may upgrade to full frame in the future.

Thank you all for the advice.