Is the 17-40L really worth the extra $300?

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 (approx $450-500) seems to be able to meet most of my needs, but of course the Canon 17-40L (approx. $650-700) is a better lens.

On my new Rebel XTi...Is the 17-40L really worth the extra $200?

If the 17-40L was also a 2.8 I would jump at the Canon. At 4.0 it's going to be an issue indoors and makes me wonder about the cost vs. benifits.

First off, the 17-40 is $635...
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …SA&addedTroughT​ype=search

2nd.. There is NO 2.8 version of the 17-40, its a 16-35L, which cost $1400

3rd. Id take the Canon over the Tamron. Ive used it, and loved it. Its not going to be an issue indoors, and if you have a flash, its very good. Its sharp. And the only reason I sold mine, is beacause i wanted a "wide angle" lens. so i sold it to get a 10-22.

If you looking at this lens for wide angle use, remember ur camera is a 1.6 crop factor.

In a word. YES!
It's a fantastic lens.....there's no way to express it until you use it. I think IS on the shorter zooms is overrated anyway. They are light, easy to use and frankly unnecc., I think (IMO) it's just a way to add extra $ to another lens. The 17-55 from all accounts is a VG lens too but if you compare photos, the 17-40L seems to win, hands down. As to the 17-50, it's also got a great following...

The 17-40L is a wonderful lens. It is my walk about, and suits me perfectly. build wquality, feel, optics, focus, all are perfect.

I'd suggest try it out in store and compare the intangible feel of the lenses you are interested in , as well as the opitical performance. I'll be surpised if you can walk away from this lens.

Is it worth the extra - EASILY!

[QUOTE=StealthLude;219​6138]First off, the 17-40 is $635...
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …SA&addedTroughT​ype=search

Thanks!
I corrected my numbers. I used Ritz Cameras as a guide. They are more expensive.

I have the 17-40 and like it.

Comparing the photozone measurements it with the Tamron, the tamron looks sharper although the review mentions curvature of field issues. The Tamron does have much higher CA at the wide end but that can be fixed in photoshop.

http://www.photozone.d​e …es/canon_1740_4​/index.htm
http://www.photozone.d​e …/tamron_1750_28​/index.htm

Checking my own measurements of the 17-40 against the photozone ones, although my copy did have some sharpness fall of in the corners wide open, by one stop closed it is up to peak sharpness unlike the photozone test, one has to remember copies can vary.

On the plus side of the 17-40 is weather sealing (light moisture resistance more like).

Build quality possibly, I don't know what Tamron are like in that respect.

More ephemeral things like having the red line.

It is worth noting that the Tamron is a 1.6 crop only lens and could not be used on a full frame camera like the 17-40.

I have a 17-40mm and it is a great lens, but I doubt most people will see any difference over the faster Tamron. I can't see any difference over my 17-70mm DC Sigma which costs even less and that is why it now stays on my camera more - it goes longer so more useful. You will see a difference pixel peeping 100% crops and if that's what you like to do then get the L. USM is also a very good to have but you pay a lot for it. Personal judgement call. BUT, I still have my 17-40mm. It's a hard lens to let go, tho' I probably will as I don't like to duplicate.

Go for the 17-40 if you do not have budgetary issues.

Check here for a lower price: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …SA&addedTroughT​ype=search

Mine should be arriving any minute now. Single item rebate will reduce cost by $45, and if you buy two items you will save $90, and that works out to about $540 not including shipping.

I have to agree with StealthLude above. If you really want w/a for the XTi get a 10-22.

Tamron 17-50mm isn't going to work on a FF digital or film body. To me that was the key selling point for the 17-40mm.

Again, as said above... depends what you want.

the 17-40 makes a good walk around lens, its equal to a 27-64 on a FF camera... but if you want a true wide angle on a 1.6 crop camera, your choices are very limmited. 10-22 is the only brand name solution out there.

StealthLude wrote in post #2196403
Again, as said above... depends what you want.

the 17-40 makes a good walk around lens, its equal to a 27-64 on a FF camera... but if you want a true wide angle on a 1.6 crop camera, your choices are very limmited. 10-22 is the only brand name solution out there.

What? My Sigma 10-20 is not a brand name solution? Choices are limited? Huh.

Other than that the 17-40 vs. all others is a great debate. Look 'round and you'll see that both sides are represented pretty equally. 2.8 vs. 4, USM versus none. It's a good lens though. Hard to lose with any of those lenses though.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2196462
What? My Sigma 10-20 is not a brand name solution? Choices are limited? Huh.

Other than that the 17-40 vs. all others is a great debate. Look 'round and you'll see that both sides are represented pretty equally. 2.8 vs. 4, USM versus none. It's a good lens though. Hard to lose with any of those lenses though.

For someone who does not understand when someone says BRAND NAME solution. Brand Name refers to Canon Brand lenses. Anything that is not Canon is considered OFF BRAND. Not that sigma or tamron is bad, its just not a brand name solution. Its 3rd party.

Canon only makes 1 wide angle for 1.6 crop camera.

And for the record, id take a peice of canon glass over a generic brand any day. Resale factor is a big deal to me.

i got my 17-40 for cheap so why not? The Tamron's great as well but for a little bit more money in my case, I'd be stupid not to get the L - better build, USM, higher resale value, etc.

It's only an f4 so to some people it may be too slow, but for me it's perfect as a daily walkaround lens... too short? walk closer

I acutally borrowed a Tamron for a few days to compare to my 17-40, image quality is identical, but some might say the L has better color and contrast... well I didn't see any major difference between the two so perhaps I got a good copy of the Tamron. I also found that 40mm on the Canon isn't that far off from 50mm on the Tamron, you just have to move your body forward a few inches to get the same crop.... so to me that's not an issue. My copy of the Tamron had some trouble doing accurate AF, so in this case the 17-40 wins by quite a bit.

When it comes downt to it, if you can find a sharp copy of the Tamron at $200 bucks less than the Canon, and that you don't need USM, better build, or worry about resale value, then the Tamron is a good lens for sure. But if you appreciate what the Canon has to offer and can find a good deal on an used 17-40, then I say go for the L, you'll love it.