Canon 17-40 a little long in the tooth?

My 17-40 beats girlfriends 17-50 on a 20D, sharper, much less noticable CA's, not faster but I use a tripod 95% of the time at f16....

If you are getting it a Jessops cancel it and use the code I mentioned above!

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2075566
How does that work? A larger aperture doesn't mean sharper images. On the contrary. Best sharpness is at around f8.

The Tamron reaches it's peak sharpness a full stop sooner than the Canon.

i.e. The Tamron is sharpest at (say for example) F/5.6 the Canon at F/8. This is a low light advantage of the Tamron over the Canon.

siejones wrote in post #2075398
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.

As far as sharpness is concerned, the Tamron looks good. Edge sharpness seems a bit better then on the Canon even.

Color/contrast/whateve​r else is hard to tell, since light is totally different in the shots, and the Canon shots don't have a color profile.

However: It seems like you have tested them both yourself, so maybe you should tell us your experiences

siejones wrote in post #2075398
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

Not a fair comparison as one was shot on a sunny day the other with a lot of overcast and backlighting (shooting into a light source).

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2075538
Call me a snob but I never buy a third party lens, from things I've heard and due to build quality and reliability.

Your a snob!

Sigma are great!

The sample images are taken from the same review site of both lenses and different times. I realise the framing and the light is different. They aint perfect good give a good idea.

NeilB: Thats useful information from someone who can compare both...thanks

It's a wash. The Canon will focus better in less than good light with USM but you'll be limited by f/4. The Tamron doesn't have USM or similiar so it'll hunt at times the Canon wouldn't (not always) but it has f/2.8 to get you a bit faster shutter speeds/lower ISO options. Both are pretty close in FL coverage.

Handle them both if you can (assuming you didn't do that test yourself) and let your gut and/or wallet decide for you.

Related but not: When I wanted ultrawide, I went with the Tokina. The IQ is good, the color is good, and AF accuracy, to be honest, isn't that important even wide open at f/4 at 12mm...there's plenty of depth of field in most instances to cover up any "misses". The same would be true if you're shooting at 16/17mm f/8 or smaller. Besides, for landscapes you're focusing to infinity (or is it hyperfocal) anyway, right?

I think what you need to decide is what would be better for those shots you happen to take that AREN'T landscapes...make your decision based on that.

Seefutlung wrote in post #2075573
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

the canon also has ring USM. it will focus faster and more accurately...i.e., you'll get more keepers especially in low light.

i've owned two tamrons and both were great lenses but the canon Ls that replaced them are simply better in every way except price .

ed rader

The Tamron doesn't have weathersealing either. It keeps sand and splashes out.

If I could find a sharper lens than my 17-40 I'd be impressed. I have a 300 f4,70-200 f4, 85 1.8 and a 50 1.4. For some reason the 17-40 beats them all. Magic copy? Maybe it's the focal length rule, maybe it's that I always shoot between 20-28 with it. Who knows.

I would never trade my 17-40 for a Tamron. Ever.

i should also add that i once decided to buy the tamron 17-35 instead of the canon 17-40. the tamron was a very good lens.

but after owning the 24-104L for awhile i found that in cases where i need WA i would sometimes fudge with the 24-105L because the color, contrast and IQ were often stunning whereas the tamron was just very good.

i wanted a WA that complemented my 24-105L so i bought the 17-40L. the 17-40 was better than my 24-105 wide open but the two were very comparable stopped down.

anyhow, i sold the tamron 17-35 which i owned less than a year and took about a $200 hit.

ouch. i should have bought the canon in the first place but back then i was looking for a bargain and i was more willing to accept a compromise.

ed rader

Both good lenses it seems. I have the L but I know in IQ terms it's a toss up if it is any better than the decent competition. No better than my ex 15-30mm Sigma or 12-24 Tokina, but USM is nice to have.

I would probably save the money and get the Tamron I reckon. A stop is worth a lot in flexibility and, often to at least some degree, creativity terms. I doubt most people would be able to tell which is the Canon and which the Tamron shot under identical conditions. Decent lenses are not that different. Of course, a decent lens is very different to a crappy lens, but that doesn't apply here.

In your shoes I would shop around for the very best price on the L (Kerso, plus rebate?) and if it's not much more then go for it. Getting it via Jessops at full retail is a mugs game. If the price is too much get the Tamron. For wide angle and a small aperture it's hard not to get an in focus shot, so USM is a luxury rather than a must have.

You can get the Canon for £439 from Kerso and also claim the £70 rebate from Canon - I did! Bargain priced 17-40 or what?

Siejones- Thanks for the comparison pictures, they are helpful.

I am in the same situation trying to decide on a new walkaround lens for landscapes, urban shots, and possibly an inside low-light shot. Wasn't sure if I needed the 2.8 in the Tamron, didn't want to spend the $ on the 17-55 2.8 IS Canon (which from what I read here, has the reputation of being a great lens but a dust vacuum), or is the 17-40 worth the $ even though its an f4. I suppose if internal shots are not the most frequent shots I am taking, and since I have a 550 flash, I'm sure I will still be able to get my shot...

siejones wrote in post #2075398
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

Its late so maybe my judgement is off but in those samples, on my computer, the Tamron doesn't come close to the contract and color of the Canon. I notice with my 17-40L it is equally contrasty and sharp.

Whatever you do decide to do go out and enjoy the pics. I went with the 17-40 for overall quality.