Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 07 Jan 2010 (Thursday) 00:14
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Totally torn...

 
Jman13
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,558 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
     
Jan 07, 2010 04:44 |  #16

I love my 17-40L, but I'm on full frame, where it really shines. On a crop body, I'd get the Tamron hands down. (I had one when I had my 30D). The Tamron is every bit as sharp, and has the wider aperture and better range (that 10mm feels bigger than it is). The Canon does have a better focus motor and a little better color, but the Tamron has significantly better distortion characteristics (the 17-40L, like many ultra-wides, has a pretty significant amount of barrel distortion at the wide end).

I found my Tamron 17-50 to be quite fast and accurate in the focusing department, if noisy. The stop of aperture is far more important for a general purpose lens than any of the smaller improvements the 17-40L will give you on a crop body. Now, on full frame, the 17-40L is an extremely good ultra-wide, for a pretty good price.


Jordan Steele - http://www.jordansteel​e.com (external link)
Admiring Light - http://www.admiringlig​ht.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Jan 07, 2010 05:11 |  #17

Dokk wrote in post #9341608 (external link)
.

Tamron 17-50/2.8
Canon 17-40/4L

: Do the AF and IQ strengths of the Canon outweigh the faster aperture of the Tamron?

Help me, POTN ... you're my only hope. ;)

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-VC) is significantly sharper (higher image resolution) across all focal ranges than the Canon 17-40 L on APS-C models -
www.photozone.de (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,526 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Aug 2008
     
Jan 07, 2010 05:37 |  #18

watt100 wrote in post #9342434 (external link)
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-VC) is significantly sharper (higher image resolution) across all focal ranges than the Canon 17-40 L on APS-C models -
www.photozone.de (external link)

Watt100 beat me to it. I don't know where the OP is getting the info that the Canon has better IQ? I just checked Photozone and the Tamron wins here, and it really wins when you look at corner and edge ratings. Plus, you get 2.8. I'd get the Tamron in a heartbeat!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandro9mm
Goldmember
Avatar
1,718 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Italy, Milan
     
Jan 07, 2010 06:08 |  #19

I have 17-40 L, it's a nice lens... but not very versatile, I lack low light shooting ability and f/4 is limiting for indoors. otherwise good sharp lens! you can read a little review I put together, I had some softness issues so maybe you should read :) canon ef 17-40 f/4L review (external link)


Photography Tips (external link) - Learn photography now!
Famous photographers (external link) - Video Interviews, photos, biography
My gear (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 36
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Jan 07, 2010 06:28 |  #20

Shooting the Tamron at f2.8, the pictures were so noisy, I wouldn't ever want to print or post any of those shots.

How can shooting at f/2.8 produce noisey images??


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 159
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Jan 07, 2010 06:48 |  #21

S30L28 wrote in post #9341768 (external link)
Remember wide angle starts at 35mm downwards. The 17-40 is technically a Ultra-wide angle, but since you're mounting it on a APS-C 1.6x sensor, you really have a 27.2mm-64mm. The difference between the two is actually 16mm, rather than 10.

This is incorrect information.

The 17-40 is always a 17-40, regardless of the format of the body it's attached to. Focal length does not change when you mount a lens on different format cameras. "Format" refers to the size of the film frame or digital sensor in a camera.

To say what you meant correctly, you need to say something like this:

17mm is considered ultra-wide on a 35mm film camera but not on an APS-C format camera. Canon markets their EF mount lenses assuming they would be used on a 35mm film format camera.

The 17-40 on an APS-C camera provides the same field (angle) of view that a 27.2-64mm lens would on a 35mm film camera (or a so-called "full-frame" DSLR).


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Jan 07, 2010 06:49 |  #22

yogestee wrote in post #9342651 (external link)
How can shooting at f/2.8 produce noisey images??

I didn't understand that, either.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Jan 07, 2010 06:53 |  #23

yogestee wrote in post #9342651 (external link)
How can shooting at f/2.8 produce noisey images??

right, that doesn't make any sense, but I suppose if you shoot at high ISO levels and f2.8 it's possible




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ken_vs_ryu
Senior Member
539 posts
Joined Mar 2007
     
Jan 07, 2010 07:11 |  #24

go wide or go home tokina 12-24


http://google-black.blogspot.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MRagon
Senior Member
953 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Tennessee
     
Jan 07, 2010 07:28 |  #25

But the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 is just "little bit" more expensive :-) I know, you can little bit yourself to death but seems to have the best of both worlds with what you're looking at. Build quality, fast focus, and f/2.8.


Canon 7D | Canon G12 | 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 |17-55mm f2.8 IS | 24-105mm f4L IS USM | 70-200 f4L IS | Ʃ 30 f1.4 | 50mm f1.4 | 85mm f1.8 | 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro | 430EX II | LumoPro LP 160

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dokk
THREAD ­ STARTER
I saw "spankin" too
Avatar
166 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Denton, TX
     
Jan 07, 2010 08:30 as a reply to  @ MRagon's post |  #26

Let me just start by saying that the Canon 17-55 is just not an option. If I was going *that* expensive, I'd just hold off for the 24-70L or 16-35L ... which is, perhaps, what I should do anyway. :lol:

I've looked at the photozone.de reports, and they seem a lot less conclusive to me. While resolution on the Tamron shows some improvement, they appear to be using a different metric. Furthermore, only the Canon has results for the 15MP sensor; so i don't have a good idea what the Tammy is capable of on the T1i. That said, the results for the Tammy in the tests are impressive ... then again, I have a hard time reconciling those results with the samples here on POTN.

As helpful as all y'all are being, I don't know that I'm any closer to a decision at this point. LoL! Two key questions that some of y'all have raised definitely need a better answer.

1. Am I going full frame? Given the results that come out of the 5D and the 1D (still a crop, I know), I suspect I will make that move some day. When that day will come is a mystery to me. Could happen sooner (with the help of grant funding, since this is part of my research) ... and it could happen later (by me squirreling away $$ in a jar month-to-month). So I'm confident it will happen someday; but I really don't know when. In the next year? Probably not. In the next 2-3 years? Possibly.

2. What are my lighting conditions? I don't purposefully go out at night to take photos. One of my favorite pastimes is to walk around a city during the day and capture what I see. That said, the vast majority of my photos at this point are probably candids of friends and family in mixed light situations indoors (think living rooms with incandescents and bars). Up until christmas, I was using either no flash (with a high ISO) or the on-board flash. Once I got my 430EX II, I discovered the joys of the bounce flash, which my friends and family don't seem to mind (any more than they mind my paparazzi butt clicking away without a flash, that is). My subjects are usually adults, but friends and family have children who I try to catch "in the act" before they notice me an smile awkwardly.

All that said, I appreciate the comments and feedback and hope y'all keep it coming. I'm still (obviously) trying to think this out and make a decision ... which is a lot harder that I was expecting. :D


~Darrel
(Sliding dangerously down another sLope... :rolleyes:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Jan 07, 2010 08:59 |  #27

Dokk wrote in post #9343135 (external link)
Let me just start by saying that the Canon 17-55 is just not an option. If I was going *that* expensive, I'd just hold off for the 24-70L or 16-35L ... which is, perhaps, what I should do anyway. :lol:
I've looked at the photozone.de reports, and they seem a lot less conclusive to me. While resolution on the Tamron shows some improvement, they appear to be using a different metric. Furthermore, only the Canon has results for the 15MP sensor; so i don't have a good idea what the Tammy is capable of on the T1i. That said, the results for the Tammy in the tests are impressive ... then again, I have a hard time reconciling those results with the samples here on POTN.

look again, www.photozone.de (external link) compares the Canon 17-55, Canon 17-40 and Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc on the same camera model with the same "metrics", it's the Tamron 28-75 they compare differently at 15MP. But yes, the results may not be the same on your new 15MP T1i (500D)
but I wouldn't be "totally torn" over it!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dokk
THREAD ­ STARTER
I saw "spankin" too
Avatar
166 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Denton, TX
     
Jan 07, 2010 09:11 as a reply to  @ watt100's post |  #28

Oops ... my bad. I misread this line from the 17-40 review: "Please pay attention to the new scale of [650,2150] which will be used for all EOS tests from now on." Now I see what it means. Damn numbers. :lol:

Like I said before, though, I still have a hard time reconciling those results with the samples here on POTN. Perhaps it's just all those dang FFs that are messing with my eyes?

Perhaps I should get the Tammy now, save up for the 16-35 or 24-70 (both at 2.8), and see what happens in near- and long-term future in terms of my shooting style, subjects, etc. Hmmmmm....


~Darrel
(Sliding dangerously down another sLope... :rolleyes:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CosmoKid
Goldmember
Avatar
4,235 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2009
Location: NJ
     
Jan 07, 2010 09:59 |  #29

The 17-40 on a crop is limiting. The 17-40 is a spectacular outdoor lens on a full frame camera.

I owned the 17-50 when I was shooting strictly crop. It was a great, versatile lens for me. I would bet if you stayed off the web you would never notice the "noisy" AF, which I never had. Is it a perfect lens? No. But used it is under $350 which is spectacular.

I used my 17-40 as my UWA on my 5D and when in a pinch, will use it on my 40d as a standardish zoom. I would rather use the 17-50.

And please everyone stop with the "are you planning on going full frame" theories because you need to buy lenses for what you are shooting with now. Buy it used and sell it used and you will shoot with it for almost free. When you go full frame you can change your lens line up to best suit you then. Stop thinking ahead.


Joe- 2 bodies, L 2.8 zoom trilogy and a couple of primes
iRocktheShot.com (external link) - Portfolio (external link)

Gear/Feedback
Facebook "Fan" Page (external link) -

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Silverfox1
Goldmember
Avatar
3,195 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 55
Joined Aug 2009
Location: South Texas
     
Jan 07, 2010 10:50 as a reply to  @ CosmoKid's post |  #30

Since you have already done the right thing in purchasing the 430 EX II and can visually see how it compliments your existing lenses simply ask yourself how many times are you going to be in an environment that prohibits flash use.

The 17-50mm f2.8 non-vc at f4.0-5.6, 35mm, with the 430EX II & ETTL you can produce some outstanding indoor portrait shots.

If you feel you dont need IS for ambient light static objects without the flash then the Tamron IMO is a nice alternative to the 17-55 saving you $550 bucks ! :p

Regards whatever your decision ! :D


Silverfox1 POTN Feedback / TC Extender Tests / Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,162 views & 0 likes for this thread
Totally torn...
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is noradenz
938 guests, 255 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.