Canon 17-40L Vs Tamron 17-50

Trying to work out my wife's Christmas present is proving a nightmare. If anyone can give opinions of the relative IQ of the two lenses I'd appreciate the input. On paper the Tamron looks great and I've seen great shots from it. Is the Canon though, being an "L" lens even better IQ wise?
The lens will be used on an XT and will hopefully become our new walkaround lens, ie everything from landscapes to our grandchild will be photographed. We have done the occasional portrait shoot when asked so we are looking for a lens that we don't have to upgrade if more work like this comes in.

Thanks,

Hal55

I bought the Tamron 17-50 and I wish it had longer than 50mm on the long end. I'm not thinking that the 17-40 would be as useful as a walkaround -- even ignoring the fact that it isn't f2.8 -- because of the limited range

The 17-40 will not be a good walkaround lens because of the range but the 24-105 f/4LIS will be a good one.

Had the 17-40L. Got rid of it for its softness at f/4, which many have reported with it. See this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …31&highlight=to​ny-s+17-40

I have both, while the L is fantastic IQ wise and build quality wise, the Tamron sees alot of use due to more reach and F/2.8

I'd much rather the f/2.8 and the extra 10mm. 50mm is just barely long enough on a walkaround lens (and 17mm is just barely wide enough too).

Thanks for the input, I forgot to mention that we are specifically after a lightweight lens - hence the limitation to a fairly short reach. We will still have our 28-135IS for longer shots but when we've come back from holidays it's been a surprise how little we shoot at longer focal lenghts. We love the Canon 10-22 but that obviously isn't anywhere near walkaround lens territiory.
In absolute terms, how much better is the Canon 17-40L? It's sort of the $400 question since that is the difference in price. If the quality difference is there I'll get it, but if not the better reach and aperture (and price) will win me over.

Thanks all,

Hal55

I would go with the Tamron. Better range, faster, and I hear maybe better IQ.

I compared both. The 17-50 is faster,cheaper and longer but has focus issues at 17mm. The 17-50 was sharper (when properly focused), the 17-40L has better colors and contrast. Build quality on the 17-40 is much better, so is focusing.

Due to the BQ, color, contrast, superior focusing and non EFS format, I went with the 17-40. It's incredibly easy to walk forward a few steps and get the 50mm shot you couldn't get a few seconds before.

That said, I almost strictly shoot nature landscapes, so the 17-40 fits me perfectly. I use my 70mm for portraits when needed or a 50 1.8.

hal55 wrote in post #4297923
In absolute terms, how much better is the Canon 17-40L? It's sort of the $400 question since that is the difference in price. If the quality difference is there I'll get it, but if not the better reach and aperture (and price) will win me over.

If you can get to f/5.6 and beyond, the 17-40L will do a great job. But at f/4, I cannot imagine the 17-40L gives better images than the Tammy. I've not owned the Tammy, but the consensus seems to be that it produces a bit better image than the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. I own the Sigma and at f/4 and equivalent FL it produces substantially sharper images than the 17-40L that I owned (and sold). The best things about the 17-40L are its lightning-fast focusing (by virtue of USM) and incredible saturation out of the camera (an easy fix in PP, though). It is, without a doubt, a real work-horse lens. But at wide apertures, the Tammy or Sigma 18-50 or 17-70 will give you sharper images, unless you get one of the rare sharp-out-of-the-box 17-40Ls.

I found the 17-40L to be an exceptional landscape lens, which offers excellent colour and contrast. I've also done a few portraits with the lens.. and it also performed rather well. I had to send my copy to Canon though - it was simply unacceptable at f/4 under certain circumstances. It DID however come back better.

If it's for walkaround, the 17-50 would be more useful. And cheaper.

17-40 works the best as an UWA on 5D. It's basically not the best choice for crop bodies as walk around given it's limited on the tele end. I use it exclusively on 5D but it will also serve as a backup standard zoom on my 30D when emergency happens.

Shhhhh don't say too loud that the 17-40L is bad at f/4 I wouldn't want mine to hear and be insulted. Seriously, it's a great lens at all apertures. I haven't tried the 17-50 so I can't say how they compare.

I did have some crop lenses which I had to sell when I went full frame. How committed is your wife to photography? Is there a chance she might want to go full frame in the future? Lenses of this calibre can last a long long time and that may make you consider the frame size when you decide.

The Tamron has very good IQ. I've never had a problem with it's AF. It not as fast as lens with HSM or USM.But it'snot all that slow. I am very happy with mine.

But on the downside, the front focus ring spins and it doesn't have full time manual focus.

I'll just put my 2 cents in here and I'm sure some people will disagree..

Go with the Canon. Period.
I own the Canon 17-40 and it's head and shoulders above anything tamron or Sigma or Tokina makes in that range. Both for IQ and physical construction.

If IQ is an issue at all, stay with Canon... And that's not to say Tamron is 'bad"... far from it actually..

My first lens was a Tamron 18-200 and since having that, I've used the Tamron 17-50...

I have used other 3rd party glass as well, and I'm a firm believer in Canon's glass. I come from the school of thought that that there is not much point in owning a Canon body, if you're going to stick 3rd party glass on it...