Canon 17-40 a little long in the tooth?

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/col​our (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?

Brillent lens, would not change mine for anything else.

Sorry, I think it is the 17-35 which goes back years...the 17-40 was realeased not that many years ago, or am I wrong (I heard they released this so that people with APS-c cameras could have wide and affordable L lens...)?

I love mine, had it a week and already I know it is 'the one' but then so is my 24-105....

since you've already got it on order, don't worry about it then.

I can't imagine any other lens for what you're looking for than the 17-40. I've done quite a bit of research and it shines in my very humble opinion! I'm going to get one myself. I have borrowed one and love it!

Oh, by the way, it was announced in February, 2003!

Jaetie wrote in post #2075006
since you've already got it on order, don't worry about it then.

I am still really struggling with it though.

I thought ordering it would force the issue with me but it aint and I am still on the verge of canceling. I am just getting so many opinions either way.

just buy the 17-40L, you know you want it.
Even if Tamron 17-50 gives you good/similar image quality, at the back of your mind you will be thinking "What if I went with Pro Grade lens with better build/speed".

[QUOTE=siejones;207483​4]

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)
quote]
For info the 17-40L will not cost anywhere near £550-£600 if you buy in the uk. Canon have a £70 rebate on this lens until the end of the year and you can buy it for less than £550 without the rebate (if you buy from 'Kerso' it will not end up a lot more expesive than the Tamron).

TBAATAR wrote in post #2075065
just buy the 17-40L, you know you want it.
Even if Tamron 17-50 gives you good/similar image quality, at the back of your mind you will be thinking "What if I went with Pro Grade lens with better build/speed".

LOL you are seeing right through me

You are right but I would love someone to convince me and make me think I am not throwing the extra cost away.

Thanks everyone for replying by the way. I can always rely on this forum for good responce.

I got mine through Jessops online with the Camerapricebuster.co.u​k voucher code = £500 - £70 cash back = £430.....I think my descision to buy the 17-40 over the Tamron 17-35 2.8 was well worth it, just looking at the pictures ....

If you buy from Kerso it'll be even cheaper!!

Just for interest.

Heres is a smiple page a setup with pictures of the same location shot with the same aperture from both cameras and both extremes of there focal lengths.

http://www.ukmountains​.com/pics/compare.html

I assume it is beacause the Tammy does not work on full frame, so it does not need to make so many compromises to deliver performance. It's also a full stop faster... and if you compare at the same aperture, the Tammy has a full stop "sharpness advantage".

If it's with Jessops cancel it anyway because they're such a rip of. If that's not the case for this lens then cancel In principle.

Call me a snob but I never buy a third party lens, from things I've heard and due to build quality and reliability.

KevC wrote in post #2075491
Tammy has a full stop "sharpness advantage".

How does that work? A larger aperture doesn't mean sharper images. On the contrary. Best sharpness is at around f8.

The Tammie is the better lens ... it is sharper and faster ... unless you are shooting in similar environments and under similar pressures as a press photog ... most of us really don't need the extra robustness/engineering of an L. If your equipment gets banged around then the L has a leg up on the 17-50.

Forget about the Badges ... lets see what we have going here ... okay ... lens A is sharper than lens B ... check ... lens A is faster than lens B ... check ... lens A is cheaper ... Lens B is better made (not that the Tammie is crap ... just that Ls are bulletproof).

Lens A
Sharper = IQ
Faster = IQ
Cheaper = Pocketbook

Lens B
Robust = Longevity
Bragging Rights = Ego

That about sums it up ... if you get the Canon then it's your ego telling you to pay 50% or so more $$$ for a lens which delivers less IQ (just for a red stripe). It's your call but I wouldn't let my ego interfere with common sense (... actually it does ... all the time ... but don't let it happen to you ...).

Gary