!!!!!!!!SORRY THIS WAS MENT FOR LENSE FORUM!!!!!
I have been battling to make decision for ages on which standard zoom to get to replace my kit lens on my 350D.
After allot of research/reviews and forum chatter I have managed to get it down to 2 lenses that are Within the price range I am prepared to pay. I realise there are 2 other lenses to consider that are up to the IQ standards of the two I mention below being the Canon 16-35 and the Canon 17-55 2.8 but both these are in another price league that is above a beyond my boundaries.
The said lenses I cam considering are:
- Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (£300)
- Canon 17-40L (£550-600)
Alot of people are affectionate about the 17-40 and many say it has great sharpness/contrast/colour (many of these articles go back a few years) and I think until the Tamron 17-50 came along it ruled the roost.
Talking about optics alone from what I have read the Tamron beats the Canon. The MTF resolution figures are better from edge to edge. It is sharper through out and is just as contrasty with good colour representation. In fact I have read in one review that maybe the 17-40's resolution will be out done in the near future with high megapixel sensors.
I want to use the lens mainly for landscape work and I feel in this area the sharpness and resolution are of the utmost importance. I do not make the argument of the Tamrons larger aperture because I will most likely be stopping down to F8-F11 anyway. So I kind of take that out of the equation.
I know...I know the canon has better/quieter focus and better build quality but these only contribute to robustness and a more luxurious feel to the lens. It has no impact on image quality and isn't this the most important thing? I don't want to pay £300 pound (twice the price of Tamron) more for just these qualities. After all drop a lens a few feet and none of them would probably survive without being damaged in some way. With the exception of professional journalists and the like we all treat our lenses with care because we know better and want to care for our expensive investment.
The canon also is FF compatible but if you do go FF then it becomes a super wide angle only and you still have to buy another lens cover the range this lens no longer caters for. So you are not really any better off and just as you would have to sell your crop only lens you would probably be selling this to finance your new lens. On top of this I have read a few stories that the extreme edges of the lens that a FF would use start to get softer to the point of bad IQ.
So if FF compatibility is not that important then maybe crop SLR users should take advantage of these cheaper crop only lenses. It seems they can be manufactured a lot cheaper and matching if not beating the optics of the FF big boy lenses. Considering the Tamron and it's performance are we seeing a so
called "next generation" of quality optics just for crop cameras. With the Tokina 16-50 on the horizon and Sigma reintroducing the 18-50 2.8 EX with a macro version that is said to have improved optics. Is it possible these also will be 17-40 betters for probably half the cost.
Don't get me wrong I am not here to slag off the canon. Far from it. In fact I have one on order with Jessops right now but I am on the brink of canceling it after serious consideration. I do want your opinions on the points I have made. Am I wrong? Have I missed something here?
