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

condyk wrote in post #2196232
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.

i had the tamron 17-35 , which was a very good lens, and i see a difference.

the 17-40L is a better lens.

better color and contrast. faster and more accurate focussing.

i get more keepers with the 17-40L and occasionally i am astounded by the results.

is the 17-40L worth the premium?

to me it was.

ed rader

Permagrin wrote in post #2197976
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?

I haven't noticed it but I haven't gone looking for it either. I shoot RAW and process through DPP - maybe that helps. I'm also try to be careful with exposure as I came from using a Canon G5 that could display those artifacts.

Same with the quoted field of curvature issue - I've never seen it in general picture taking - it may occur, but I've not tested/searched for it ... or noticed it.

Luckie8 wrote in post #2197967
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

They were for me. Photography can get expensive

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

cjm wrote in post #2197984
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.

Heh - there's a ton of FD users that would disagree with that.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2201706
Heh - there's a ton of FD users that would disagree with that.

Well, I'm an FD user but I totally understand why Canon had to go to the EF system (and not make it backwards compatible). I don't think you'd find too many FD users actually complaining.

Mark

I can't imagine Canon abandoning the Ef system any time soon - but Lord can imagine the outcry?

But back in the mid 80's, most people were either amateurs with a couple of lenses, or serious pro users who i am pretty sure got looked after by Canon - witness the official canon FD-Eos converter. i thin k the phenomenon of enthusiasts using pro level gear is fairly new - if I didn't have broad band I wouldn't have spent so much time on POTN and other forums, and I'd still be using consumer glass and probably feel it was OK.

I have the Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 and it is a great lens. I compared the reviews and cancelled the order for the Canon L lens because the sharpness and the CA of the Tamron are the best. And it's FF !!! The AF is slower but with 2.8-4 aperture it's not a real issue. I put my saved money into a 15mm Fisheye from Canon, that's a lens...:p

I wish there was something wider than 17mm but not as wide as 10 or 12... Actually, more 15-30 choices would be nice....
eh, I keep what ifing the Tokina 12-24. 17-40 would be too much duplicity for me...

For a 1.6x body, I would take the f2.8 lens-options before the f4L, as well-built and ring USM AF'ing it is.

If you can stand the screech of a Sigma focusing the image quality isn't bad...not on par with the 17-40L...but not bad....I just can't say that I am fond of using lenses that require earplugs. f/2.8 on a short lens generally isn't an issue for me since most work done with that focal length is at f/8 to f/16.