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

hmongstang wrote in post #2196840
i just received mine about a hour ago! woof, im totally inlove with this lense.

Congrats! I was in love once too but had to let er go to fund a 30D purchase..
God.. I missed her..

Permagrin wrote in post #2196614
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.

You didn't offend me. I was just wondering if you were one of those, if it isn't a Canon "L" it is sh@t people. To bring up a lens the OP didn't even mention, not as a viable option but only to degrade it, what is the point? If you said something regarding the the lens the OP mentioned and compared them fairly I wouldn't have said a word.

Bosman wrote in post #2197079
You didn't offend me. I was just wondering if you were one of those, if it isn't a Canon "L" it is sh@t people. To bring up a lens the OP didn't even mention, not as a viable option but only to degrade it, what is the point? If you said something regarding the the lens the OP mentioned and compared them fairly I wouldn't have said a word.

Well since the other "option" I was talking about was canon, I fail to understand how you would infer that I was one of those "if it isn't canon it's...." people. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was pointing out to the OP that the 2.8 (I did mention his other option) or IS isn't absolutely necc. on that small of a lens. Attempting to alleviate his concern about an f4 vs. an f2.8. In either case, it's quite valiant of you to defend the OP and the 3rd party lenses so stoutly. Even when neither are being degraded.

Permagrin wrote in post #2197113
Well since the other "option" I was talking about was canon, I fail to understand how you would infer that I was one of those "if it isn't canon it's...." people. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was pointing out to the OP that the 2.8 (I did mention his other option) or IS isn't absolutely necc. on that small of a lens. Attempting to alleviate his concern about an f4 vs. an f2.8. In either case, it's quite valiant of you to defend the OP and the 3rd party lenses so stoutly. Even when neither are being degraded.

Yes you did mention the Tamron

quote: "As to the 17-50, it's also got a great following."

Wow! that was insightful! Sorry.

I said Canon "L" did you see the "L".

Comparing 2.8 vs 4.0 sounds like a DOF delima not a IS shutter speed issue.

forkball wrote in post #2196357
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.

I'm also looking to the future and will be looking to get a FF body at some point which is why I have gone for the EF lenses. I'd rather spend the "big" money once instead of doing a buy to suit my purposes now.

The 17-40 is great, although I am a newbie on the "L" lenses. The 24-105 is on my camera the most at the moment.

StealthLude wrote in post #2196684
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.

That's not semantics.
Heck, a Canon Brand Name version of that lens technically doesn't even exist. There is no Canon 28-75.
Additionally, no one was "clowning" on the 17-40, especially me. I love the lens, heck almost bought it when I was gettting rid of my kit lens. What really makes the 17-40L worth the extra money is the USM.

Bosman wrote in post #2197136
Yes you did mention the Tamron

quote: "As to the 17-50, it's also got a great following."

Wow! that was insightful! Sorry.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot possibly comment on something I've neither owned nor operated. I have owned/used the others. I find the 17-40 to outshine it's competitors, thus far. To me it's worth the money. As I am entitled to an opinion, I voiced it. Hereafter, if you find my turns of phrase irritating, you are totally at liberty to hit the ignore button, as I am about to.

dgcorner wrote in post #2196239
Go for the 17-40 if you do not have budgetary issues.

I'd go for the 16-35mm f/2.8 USM or the 17-55mm f/2.8 EFS IS if I didn't have a budget issue.

I was in the same boat, I was looking for a lens lighter and wider then my 24-70L for general use. I sold my 10-22mm EFS to help fund the thing.

I opted for the Canon L over the Tamron b/c I could use the Canon on my FF film body to substitute the loss of the 10-22mm. In addition, I'll never need to sell the 17-40mm L if I upgrade to a full frame digital. Being able to share all of my glass on the film body is a nice plus for me. That said I figure very few still shoot film.

Bear in mind that the 10mm difference is more siginifcant when you're shooting landscapes though.

I've been using a Tamron 17-50 for about 4 months now and I think it's great.

For me it has 10mm more reach (I find this useful), f/2.8 (which lets in twice as much light as f/4) and it shares a polarizing filter with my 70-200 f/4 (which saves the considerable cost of buying a 77mm version and makes a compact 2-lens set-up). Add to that its built-well-enough and takes nice sharp shots.

I've not used the Canon 17-40 but it's advantages of USM/FTM, build quality, feel, weather sealing, (all great features) and more are stated in this thread.

I bought the Tamron to suit what I do now (and it will no doubt suit me for quite a few years to come). It all depends what compromises you can live with to get the shots that you are interested in getting.

The save choice on a FF would be the Tamron 17-35mm, see http://www.photozone.d​e …_1735_284_nikon​/index.htm. It has only CF on smaller apertures, the rest is way better than all the competitors.

abat wrote in post #2197748
I've been using a Tamron 17-50 for about 4 months now and I think it's great.

For me it has 10mm more reach (I find this useful), f/2.8 (which lets in twice as much light as f/4) and it shares a polarizing filter with my 70-200 f/4 (which saves the considerable cost of buying a 77mm version and makes a compact 2-lens set-up). Add to that its built-well-enough and takes nice sharp shots.

Those are the big key advantage to give the Tammy 17-50 a consideration over the 17-40L especially if you own 70-200 f/4L

I'm curious, I've read about CA and fringing w/the tamron but I've never heard anyone here on POTN mention it...do you have any issues w/that in high contrast situations?

Just Be wrote in post #2196103
Is the 17-40L really worth the extra $200?

Absolutely! Never mind the optical quality of the L but with a Canon lens you are guaranteed that it will work with any future camera body, where as a 3rd party doesnt really have that.

You could probably find a used 17-35 f2.8 L but I do not recommend it. I bought one of those, I sold it with in a day because the 17-40 L is superior to it in every way except f4. And f4 I barely need for landscapes, to say I don't I use f11!

I've had the 17-40 since early summer and I absolutely love it for landscapes. I don't use it much indoors because I have the 24-70. For the money, it is far better than you can imagine.