anyone had a 17-40 and 17-55

Fangs404 wrote in post #8863802
Canon 17-40mm f/4L vs Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

The Tamron is noticably sharper in pretty much every configuration. Even the Tamron at 2.8 is sharper than the 17-40 at 4.

Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS vs Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Again, the Tamron is noticeably sharper, especially wide open at 2.8.

I haven't personally used it, but I've seen enough sample reviews and talked to a couple photographer friends firsthand that have said really nice things about it. I'm going to be buying the VC model myself next month when it hits stores. The fact that it's half the price of the Canon equivalent (the 17-55 IS) is just icing on the cake.

The Digital Picture crops for the 17-55 are not valid. He says so in the review.

The Tamron 17-50 is near the 17-55 in resolution. Both are much better than the 17-40. The 17-55 has more flare issues.

And you should know that not all (and I don't think even most) L lenses are sealed, so whether or not the 17-55 is weather-sealed doesn't really matter.

adrian5127 wrote in post #8865493
Fangs
That is ver interesting. Like you say it beats the 17-40 in every configuration. compared to the canon 17-55 it beats it at 17mm but I would say the canon marginally beats it at the long end.

Do you know how much the VC model is going to go for ?? Like you say the price does make it very attractive

Currently, you can pre-order the Tamron with VC for $649 - $25 rebate with free shipping (so $624 total) from Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/​dp/B002LVUIXA/). Canon's 17-55mm IS goes for $1046.44 (http://www.amazon.com …ens-Cameras/dp/B000EW8074).

As soon as I posted I realised virtually everyone who has contributed is from the other side of the pond. Had a look over here and I can get my hands on it for £550 odd and the canon for over £700. Thanks for going to the trouble to look up the prices

toxic wrote in post #8865550
The Digital Picture crops for the 17-55 are not valid. He says so in the review.

The Tamron 17-50 is near the 17-55 in resolution. Both are much better than the 17-40. The 17-55 has more flare issues.

And you should know that not all (and I don't think even most) L lenses are sealed, so whether or not the 17-55 is weather-sealed doesn't really matter.

Where do you see that? The only mention I see of the chart tests in the review is this:

^ read it again. Resolution charts are shot at very close distances.

edit: SLRgear also has resolution charts, in a different form. Those are also good for comparisons, and they do CA and distortion as well.

Actually i have 17-50 and 17-55, I actually think that canon 17-55mm is slightly sharper at every aperture (even at 2.8). I actually feel very weird that a few people tell me that 17-50mm is sharper. But i can only give you my opinion on what i have, my opinion is definitely that 17-55 is sharper, spot on focus, can do low light MUCH better. Not saying that 17-50mm doesn't do well in focusing, i have a miss in 10 or so pictures, never have problem with 17-55mm. 17-50mm hunts at low light quite a bit, but 17-55 can do much better job in that. 17-50mm is also pretty loud in focusing, but it only bothers me in the video mode that it capture every focusing sound it made...

Here my 2 cents, I have not owned 17-55 long enough to know about the dust or anything issue, but so far, it's been treating me very well.

toxic wrote in post #8865807
^ read it again. Resolution charts are shot at very close distances.

edit: SLRgear also has resolution charts, in a different form. Those are also good for comparisons, and they do CA and distortion as well.

Yup, I just found it on the Tamron non-VC review actually:

The noise the tamron makes could be interesting as I plan to go for a 7D, although video capture is not my main reason it is definitely something I will have a go of. I have the tamron 90 macro which is a nice lens can be quite noisy and definitely hunts more than my 17-40. I will have to go down a shop and have a play with both.

Give me about 6 months and I'll have both. The 17-55/2.8 (which I have) as my walk around on my 1.6 crop and the 17-40/4L (which I'm going to buy) in the bag when I'm walking around with the 24-105/4L on the 5D2. Since I think 24 mm is wide in a FF, 17 mm is going to look WOW

Oaktree, thanks I will hold out for six months

adrian5127 wrote in post #8868130
Oaktree, thanks I will hold out for six months

Hey, glad to help

Actually if you have the will power, waiting can clear the mind. The 17-40 and 100-400 zoom kit you have can cover a lot of ground. You may learn to love your kit and the visions of a 17-55/2.8 may fade. L-type built and weather sealing are advantages.

adrian5127 wrote in post #8865968
The noise the tamron makes could be interesting as I plan to go for a 7D, although video capture is not my main reason it is definitely something I will have a go of. I have the tamron 90 macro which is a nice lens can be quite noisy and definitely hunts more than my 17-40. I will have to go down a shop and have a play with both.

In my experience, the microphone is position such that it picks up even the noise from USM (the ffft ffft noise). IS even crazier, and non-USM even louder. If you're seriously thinking about Video, you will NEED an external mic, unless it's just environmental noise you want.

Also, IS helps be closer to a steady cam. Non-IS is pretty difficult to use for handholding video.