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

Er, for the record, brand name means that a manufacturers name is on the product that's used to identify and market the product. Hence "brand name" or "generic". Generic would be no reference to a brand or manufacturer.

StealthLude wrote in post #2196515
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.

Says the dude with a Tamron 28-75.:p

LOL - What a silly arguement.

StealthLude wrote in post #2196508
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.

I knew what you meant...

Brand name vs. Generic. I wouldn't call Tamron or Sigma generic. I would call them 3rd party, but still a brand name.

Permagrin wrote in post #2196164
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...

Why are you going on about IS (Image Stabilization)???

The Tamron doesn't have IS........

Bosman wrote in post #2196600
Why are you going on about IS (Image Stabilization)???

The Tamron doesn't have IS........

I was just referring to the canon 17-55 (another possible consideration in that mm range). If my "going on and on" about an alternative option offends you, I apologize.

If you're planning on going full frame eventually, then get the 17-40. I was a little hesitant on buying the Tamron this summer due to the above mentioned field curvature. Now I think the reviewers exagerated, and the OOF portion only shows at extreme corners wide open at 17mm.
I'll buy it for Christmas, cross fingers to get a good copy, though.

I've got the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the 10-22 on my 30D. Both are incredible lenses.

The 17-55 would be my first choice of any of the lenses mentioned, but I'd probably go with the Tamron and put the savings towards a 10-22. Also, there is no need to buy new when there are plenty of pre-owned lenses in great condition that will save you some money. If you go the two lens route you should be able to get them for $1000.

For price comparison purposes, the 17-55 is only $999 at B&H, not what their web site says.

If you wind up going for the Canon lens and want the 2x rebates, I've got 4 rebate items already and I could sell you one of mine rebates or process yours for you to help you double up.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2196546
Er, for the record, brand name means that a manufacturers name is on the product that's used to identify and market the product. Hence "brand name" or "generic". Generic would be no reference to a brand or manufacturer.

Says the dude with a Tamron 28-75.:p


LOL - What a silly arguement.

Listen "DUDE".. You are playing Semantics with my words. I dont care what you call it. Its NOT canon brand, there for its not a brand name product. Im not going to buy a Farrari and stick a ford fender on it. Im sure that **** aint Brand Name to the Farrari owner.

For someone who has NOT read many of my posts, the Tamron was a gift from my Girl Friend. The tammy is good, but not great. Id still take the canon version over the lens any day. Im suprised she even got me a lens, never mind a $1200 lens. Oviously everyones money situation is different. Im not going to sell a lens that was gifted to me. At this point, the lens holds more centimental value. When I do buy my CANON BRAND NAME versoin of that lens, I still wont sell the Tamron, since it was given to me.

So before you go clowning on others lenses, you might want to ask why one has a certain lens.

There have been tests saying that the Tamron is just as sharp as the Canon 17-40. I read endless amounts of reviews before I decided to go with a Tamron 17-35.

Canon does have better resale value and I almost picked a 17-40 for a good price locally but it was sold.

WhoisDAN wrote in post #2196694
There have been tests saying that the Tamron is just as sharp as the Canon 17-40. I read endless amounts of reviews before I decided to go with a Tamron 17-35.

Canon does have better resale value and I almost picked a 17-40 for a good price locally but it was sold.

When you compare MTF and also look at real life field testing... They are very close. It just comes down to personal preference, $'s, and the deal at the time. Im the worst of the worst when it comes to pixel peepers. Lots of people do it, and find flaws in a lens that is otherwise excellent when you look at the whole picture.

Resale for me will always be the deciding factor. As a good friend of mine always says, "Its not what I buy it for, its what I can sell it for"

StealthLude wrote in post #2196728
Resale for me will always be the deciding factor. As a good friend of mine always says, "Its not what I buy it for, its what I can sell it for"

This is very true...canon lenses re-sell for quite a bit higher (in my experience) than the others....doesn't mean the others aren't as good, but if I'm not sure I'll be keeping a lens, at least I know it'll sell well.

i have the tammy and i chose it over the canon #1 because image quality is similiar #2 cheaper price (more money for other lenses) #3 the F2.8. I struggle at night a little bit with my 70-200 F4 and i would imagine it would be similiar with the 17-40. All I can say that the f2.8 of the tammy is wonderful for lowlight situations. I say dont pay attention to brand names. you are comparing a 17-50 2.8 lens with it's image quality to a 17-40 f4 lens with it's image quality.

As a rule, you also pay more for Canon lenses. Personally I'm quite happy to buy 3rd party lenses if there is no Canon equivalent at the same quality or niche - for instance the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is excellently reviewd and peerless - no one else makes one. the Canon 35L is way above, and the 28mm f/1.8 is (some) way below.

For an ultra wide I would also go sigma - the 10-20 is much better priced and as I already have a 17-40, I figure I've got that 20-22mm range aced

Anyone got any samples of your sigma or tammy, when I borrowed a co-workers, I found it to be fairly soft wide open and did show CA depending on the type of light at the time. I dont know if it was his copy, but thats how I ended up with the 10-22. I also picked up my 10-22 from a DELL.com deal using coupon codes about a year ago... If I sold the on ebay for the going rate, I would actually make a few bucks in the process.

Just Be wrote in post #2196103
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.

I'm not sure why f/4 is going to be an issue indoors. Since f/2.8 is only 1 stop difference, it would also be an issue indoors. IMO, the canon is worth it.

i just received mine about a hour ago! woof, im totally inlove with this lense.