17-40 L vs 17-50 f/2.8

Alright, so after a paid job I got 450 dollars, just enough to buy the tamron 17-50 or do i spend the extra 180 dollars and get the 17-40 L. Most of my work is of landscapes, but i still want to use the lens inside, I am okay with a flash, so I think there will be no problem. What would you pick if you had this option. Thanks for the feedback.

It depends on what you need/want. I assume the tamron 17-50 is a crop lens (e.g. EF-S type) therefore it would not work on a full frame camera. If you are just starting out, a full frame camera may not be in your foreseeable future. If this is true, then go for the 2.8.

actually, the company I do all my work for is going to help me fund a full frame camera in the near future. that said i think i might go for the 17-40 L , but in the mean time I didnt know if the tamron would be suitable until i go FF.

From my experiance using the 17-40 F4 you need to supply it with plenty of light (bumping up the ISO is not always the answer) - Stopped at f8 on a nice sunny day will ensure very crisp and clear results.

thescottandrew wrote in post #2243386
actually, the company I do all my work for is going to help me fund a full frame camera in the near future. that said i think i might go for the 17-40 L , but in the mean time I didnt know if the tamron would be suitable until i go FF.

The Tamron is a VERY nice lens. It's capable of very clean images. However, the Canon 17-40L has USM focas motor and I can tell you that the difference in focus between my 17-40L or even my 70-200L and my Tamron 28-75 is like night and day.

arkturas wrote in post #2243392
From my experiance using the 17-40 F4 you need to supply it with plenty of light (bumping up the ISO is not always the answer) - Stopped at f8 on a nice sunny day will ensure very crisp and clear results.

who does landscapes below F4? i own the 17-40L and use it mostly between f5.6 and f11.

as usual too much is made about the extra stop. get the canon.

ed rader

thanks ed, I think i will go that route, hope i wont regret it

thescottandrew wrote in post #2243485
thanks ed, I think i will go that route, hope i wont regret it

i doubt you will regret it. if you want an all-purpose walkaround and you wanted to save some bucks and you shoot in low light without flash the tamron might be a better choice.

i have owned a couple of tamron lenses and they were great. i had a the 17-35 which was probably the most highly regarded third party zoom in this range.

but the canon focusses faster and more accurately and will give you more keepers, and the L color and contrast just cannot be beat. and buildwise the 17-40L is an absolute gem.

ed rader

yea the 17-40 L will be a better choice, for the work i do. if i do need to do indoor work then that will give me time to practice my flash skills even more. thanks once again for the input.

Landscapes = Canon in this case . built like a tank, for landscapes I use nothing else . enjoy

its not just landscapes, i also photograph tents for a company and give them really large prints, it is still the same concept.

ed rader wrote in post #2243411
who does landscapes below F4? i own the 17-40L and use it mostly between f5.6 and f11.

as usual too much is made about the extra stop. get the canon.

ed rader

Totally agree, most people wont use a lens past f/4 anyway and if they do, unless they know how to use it the limited DOF will probably ruin the shot

For low light shooting or for DOF effects even a f/2.8 lens is really too slow, so a fast prime is far better IMO (50 1.4 , 85 1.2 etc.)

As with most things - everyones needs are different, and for some f/4 is not fast enough for them... But even though I don't own the 17-40, the comments I've heard about it are generaly very favourable, it makes a great landscape lens and it can be used on a crop body.