17-40 L vs Tamron 17-35

I really need a wide angle for the 5D. With the rebate there will be a £130 price difference between the two lenses. Can anyone with experience of either give their opinions and/or shots here?

After using the 24-105 (which I love) will I forever regret not getting the L if I did go the 3rd party route?

I have both lenses. The Tamron is very sharp and crisp. It suffers from both vignetting and softness when wide-open and all my sensors are cropped. At f/8 the image quality is wonderful. The AF is noticeably slower than Canon USM and can be distinctly heard. The focus ring also spins.

The Canon 17-40 helps produce images that are sharp and crisp at wide open...which is f/4. The colrs are deep and not nearly as superficial looking as the Tamron. It is built so much better than the Tamron and AF's very quick and quiet.

The Tamron, imo, is inferior to the Canon. That said, those things that it lacks or suffers make it a fun lens to use and especially good for weddings!

Cheers. MOst of my landscapes are done at f10 - f22, so wide open isn't so much of an issue for me. Of course edges sharpness is an issue with the 5D. What is the Tamron like for CA's??

I loved my 17-40s. They were very sharp and the colors were great. The AF is fast and the build is nothing short of excellent. Overall, it's a great lens and worth the money if you can't afford the much more expensive (but faster) 16-35/2.8.

I've heard that new "releases" of 17-40 are "tweaked" towards APS-C and they are not that good as older ones. Is is true?

dentharg wrote in post #2034294
I've heard that new "releases" of 17-40 are "tweaked" towards APS-C and they are not that good as older ones. Is is true?

this sounds like absolute nonsense!

if a lens is good for full frame or aps-h cameras, then it will even better on an aps-c camera, utilizing the sweet spot - which is the center and the sharpest area of the lens.

subtle_spectre wrote in post #2034112
I have both lenses. The Tamron is very sharp and crisp. It suffers from both vignetting and softness when wide-open and all my sensors are cropped. At f/8 the image quality is wonderful. The AF is noticeably slower than Canon USM and can be distinctly heard. The focus ring also spins.

The Canon 17-40 helps produce images that are sharp and crisp at wide open...which is f/4. The colrs are deep and not nearly as superficial looking as the Tamron. It is built so much better than the Tamron and AF's very quick and quiet.

The Tamron, imo, is inferior to the Canon. That said, those things that it lacks or suffers make it a fun lens to use and especially good for weddings!

Well said _ Neil I believe Damitri uses the Tamron on his Full Frame.

Jaetie wrote in post #2034359
this sounds like absolute nonsense!

if a lens is good for full frame or aps-h cameras, then it will even better on an aps-c camera, utilizing the sweet spot - which is the center and the sharpest area of the lens.

Yes but I've heard that they suffer now from AF problems and image quality in corners more than the older specimens.

Bluedog_XT wrote in post #2034363
Well said _ Neil I believe Damitri uses the Tamron on his Full Frame.

Yes I have chatted with him and he is very happy. Financially I am swayed towards the Tamron.

Neilyb wrote in post #2034079
I really need a wide angle for the 5D. With the rebate there will be a £130 price difference between the two lenses. Can anyone with experience of either give their opinions and/or shots here?

After using the 24-105 (which I love) will I forever regret not getting the L if I did go the 3rd party route?

If you buy the 17-40 from Kerso, with the rebate there will not be much in it price wise.

Good point.