Canon 17-40L or Tamron 17-50 F2.8? [Archive]

contoursvt

Sep 24th, 2007, 01:48 AM

I have a 20D and have a 18-55 Kit lens as well as a 28-105 F3.5-4.5 Canon lens and a Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6. I'm not so happy with the kit lens due to its build quality (lens wobble) and sometimes inconsistent focusing and want to change it. Problem is I cant decide between the 17-40L F4 or the new Tamron 17-50 F2.8.

I hear the Tamron is very sharp but there are issues with getting one thats actually good (meaning they have a quality control issue). Its obviously faster which is good. Some say it feels really cheap so that scares me a bit.

I hear the 17-40 is a bit soft but its a very consistent lens and of course built like a tank and its sealed so no dust can ever get in.

I'm leaning towards the 17-40 but I'm wondering if anyone who might have tried both can chime in.

Thanks guys :)

klam

Sep 24th, 2007, 03:32 AM

I think you may find that the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 a more versatile lens. I always prefer large aperture lenses myself. The 17-40L is really a full-frame ultra-wide and at f/4 it is not fast enough to use as your standard zoom on the 20D. On full frame, it is a beautiful ultra-wide and fantastic for landscapes where you would typically not need an f/2.8 lens.

KorruptioN

Sep 24th, 2007, 09:45 AM

I'd go for the Tamron 17-50mm. f2.8 is awesome.

Just because a Canon lens is designated as an L-series lens doesn't mean it is 100% consistent... a buddy of mine had to go through a bunch of 35mm f1.4L's before finding a good and clean copy, yet getting a good Sigma 30mm f1.4 right away. It seems to be the luck of the draw. Buy locally if you want to be absolutely sure.

The 17-40L will be usable on a full-frame camera if that's the direction you may be heading to, but it costs a ton more, is slower, and the range isn't quite as broad as the Tamron.

contoursvt

Sep 24th, 2007, 10:50 AM

Hmmm sounding like the Tamron might be a better option then. So in terms of optics, colour, contrast..etc., just because its "L" glass, does not necessarily make it superior to the cheaper lenses? Is the cost mostly because its built more sturdy and its full frame...well and because its a canon brand?

antsii

Sep 24th, 2007, 11:32 AM

I just picked up the Tammy 17-50. It's great - lightweight, fast lens, sharp wide open. Love the 2.8 since I shoot in low light. It may be all plastic, but it's solid. No wobble anywhere.

I thought about the 17-40 but wanted something faster with a wider range.

In any case, enjoy your purchase!

antsii

Sep 24th, 2007, 11:33 AM

In terms of quality control, just try to go to a store to try them out. I tried a couple copies before choosing one.

malbadon

Sep 24th, 2007, 01:42 PM

I also own a tam 17-50 2.8, and have zero complaints. If you are used to a lens with USM, the tammy is noisy, but at half the cost of the canon 17-55 2.8 you can't beat its value.

contoursvt

Sep 24th, 2007, 05:07 PM

HMMM... I must went to vistek and tried the lens on a 40D and I have to say that I found the focusing to be quite slow even compared to the 18-55 kit lens. I'm not sure how happy I'd be with the slow focus. I might wait for the 17-40.

Gdog

Sep 24th, 2007, 05:35 PM

For the price you'll save, the 17-50 is a great lens. Sure, it is a bit noisy compared to USM, but for the versatility it's fantastic. Don't forget you get a lens hood with your purchase!

I used the Tamron extensively and the 2.8 comes in handy when you're shooting in low light...times like that make me glad to have a full 2.8 in the 17-50 range.

Check out the "photography" label (http://thedailykimchi.blogspot.com/search/label/photography?max-results=100) on my blog for pics I took in Seoul with the 17-50.

antsii

Sep 24th, 2007, 05:57 PM

That's surprising, contoursvt... I've heard that the loud AF motor makes it seem like it takes a long time to focus, but it's actually quite fast.

contoursvt

Sep 24th, 2007, 06:05 PM

Well the autofocus was ok if the changes were minor but if you focused on something close and then on something far, the focus time was considerably longer than even the kit lens. If you focused on stuff that was close by then the time was not bad (still felt slower but not by that much).

I'm sure it wouldnt be too bad to use but I can definitly say its not as fast as any of the USM lenses. I do have an older Canon Micro motor lens and the focus of this Tamron was faster than that lens but that 80-200 I had was really slow.

I guess I'm being picky. Sometimes I like to take pics of fish in the fishtank and they do move around so trying to use the tamron for that situation might get a bit annoying. The 17-40 I borrowed from work for a day was stupid fast for focus so I got spoiled by that too I'm sure.

KorruptioN

Sep 24th, 2007, 08:56 PM

contoursvt

Sep 24th, 2007, 09:34 PM

While this may be true, I'm sure the 18-55 kit lens is considerably slower in focus speed than say something like the 17-40 Canon lens. I'm not sure if there are any focus tests out there but I do know that Canon's USM is supposed to be very fast and my kit lens I used as an example because it should be the slowest of them all (I'd guess due to its price).

BTW I stopped by a Henrys and tried the 17-40. Wow what a lens. I'm only going by the feel and construction and the focus speed is very fast and its silent. I'm very impressed overall - except for the price. Wow its pricey (at least for me). I can get it for $869. Thats almost double the price of the Tamron. Of course the good thing is that if I ever did go full frame, the lens would go with me.....

The focus path on the Tamron is likely a lot longer than the kit 18-55mm lens. This will allow for more finer control when you focus manually.

ibintegra

Sep 24th, 2007, 09:44 PM

BTW I stopped by a Henrys and tried the 17-40. Wow what a lens. I'm only going by the feel and construction and the focus speed is very fast and its silent. I'm very impressed overall - except for the price. Wow its pricey (at least for me). I can get it for $869. Thats almost double the price of the Tamron. Of course the good thing is that if I ever did go full frame, the lens would go with me.....

Then 17-40 is a good lens but you're going to miss the f2.8. Get what you have now not what you might possibly get in the future. I know everybody loves full-frame but I'm sure by the time you upgrade, you'll want better gear. The 17-40 isn't going to cut it on a > 5D.

antsii

Sep 24th, 2007, 10:11 PM

Sounds like you need super fast AF, so maybe the Canon is a good choice. If you're going to shoot in good light most of the time, then the f4 will serve you well.

But I find f2.8 absolutely necessary for shooting in low light and shallow depth of field. I wouldn't give up the f2.8. I had the 17-85 f4-5.6, and just couldn't get nice DoF with it.

hagbard

Sep 24th, 2007, 11:06 PM

My (now lost, thanks Canon) 17-40L was a total piece of garbage (which was why I sent it to Canon, thanks again) that was incapable of anything other than fuzzy images. I've heard lots of good things about the Tamron, and had I kept my Canon gear, I would have bought that lens (as a replacement for the 17-40L Canon lost).

antsii

Sep 24th, 2007, 11:26 PM

WTH happened hagbard?

contoursvt

Sep 24th, 2007, 11:46 PM

well I think I might be able to borrow a first generation 17-40L from my work! Well for a few days anyway. I'll play with it.

Its too bad what happened to you (bum lens and then canon losing it). Did you ever get compensated for that?

My (now lost, thanks Canon) 17-40L was a total piece of garbage (which was why I sent it to Canon, thanks again) that was incapable of anything other than fuzzy images. I've heard lots of good things about the Tamron, and had I kept my Canon gear, I would have bought that lens (as a replacement for the 17-40L Canon lost).

KorruptioN

Sep 24th, 2007, 11:49 PM

WTH happened hagbard?

You asked for it...

klam

Sep 25th, 2007, 11:21 AM

I am using a 17-40L on the 5D and it is a beautiful lens, great ultra-wide images, great handling. However, for a crop camera you may find better usage out of the f/2.8 Tamron.

hagbard

Sep 25th, 2007, 03:27 PM

WTH happened hagbard?

You asked for it...

Haha.....

But really, search on "hagbard" under "author" and "Canon" under subject and you're sure to come across the story. If you can't find it, you can PM me and I'll give you the whole ugly story. Korruption doesn't like me messing with his business (I think he sells Canon - mental note to self - don't shop at Blacks). The short form is I sent them the lens, they lost it but wouldn't tell me or take my calls until I went to the President of Canon, then they fessed up. Total time ignored was two months.

As for the lens, it never produced a single decent image. While I at first thought it was a so-called "back focus" issue, I've come to believe it was likely oil inside the lens. Skeptics became believers when I posted images from the lens on a tripod. If you search the photo forums, you'll find tons of people who've had problems with that lens. Not "L" quality at all.

Its too bad what happened to you (bum lens and then canon losing it). Did you ever get compensated for that?

Yes I did (the cost of the lens). I'm certain I wouldn't have had I relied on the service depot. They didn't, btw, give me enough to cover the cost of a new one but did cover the purchase price (great Henry's sale).

eelfliw

Sep 25th, 2007, 03:49 PM

Whether the Canon or Tamron makes sense for you depends on what you shoot and where you shoot. The Canon does have better construction than Tamron. But don't be mislead. Dust will get in. The L series dust seal isn't as good as some people claim it to be. I know a lot of people forked out a lot of extra hard earned $$$ for the L lens so they need to justify to themselves that the lens is bullet proof. It isn't. Don't let that be your main deciding factor.

If you shoot mostly in darker areas and don't like to use high ISO on the 20D (IMHO, 20D produces good pictures at ISO 400 & lower, at 800 it gets noisy), then get the Tamron for the extra stop. It's priceless.

Sharpness wise, it pretty much a draw on the 20D since the 20D's limited FOV means you won't see the corners. Around the centre, both lenses are pretty much the same.

I started out with the 17-40 f/4L but can't live with the f/4. So I got a 16-35 f/2.8L and now have the Mark II version of the lens after switching to a 1Ds body. With a full frame body, you'll see the sharper corners of the Mark II over the Mark I. But with a 1.6 crop body, it won't make a difference. So, the choice of lens may also be affected by what body you plan to get next.

As for dust, any lens will get dusty if you shoot a lot. It's better to send the lens to Canon for yearly cleaning than buy into the L series weather seal marketing. The dust seal isn't magic. Drive a jeep on a dusty road with the camera on your lap and you'll get dust inside.

KorruptioN

Sep 25th, 2007, 08:41 PM

Korruption doesn't like me messing with his business (I think he sells Canon - mental note to self - don't shop at Blacks).

My store only has the 400D (the Rebel XTi). We sell primarily Nikon (the D80 and D40) and some Pentax (K100D, K10D). The only problem I have with your story is that you preach it to everybody as if the same thing will happen to everybody else who buys a Canon lens. This is far from the truth, and is pretty damaging to their otherwise solid reputation. And now you're trying to sling mud at me to help your cause?

hagbard

Sep 25th, 2007, 11:12 PM

My store only has the 400D (the Rebel XTi). We sell primarily Nikon (the D80 and D40) and some Pentax (K100D, K10D). The only problem I have with your story is that you preach it to everybody as if the same thing will happen to everybody else who buys a Canon lens. This is far from the truth, and is pretty damaging to their otherwise solid reputation. And now you're trying to sling mud at me to help your cause?

Just given you're mud back. Thanks anyway.

Don't know how they ever got that "solid reputation" given their very active deception when it came to me. I guess all I can say is you'd better hope they never screw up in your case, or they'll ignore you rather than admit they screwed up. Having shared this story for over a year, I've heard from others that have experience much the same from Canon's service centres (both in Calgary and in the States).

ryan_lau100

Sep 29th, 2007, 12:35 AM

first issue: tammy is great. have one and f2.8 is where its at. it is because of this i am never going to anything slower than 2.8. time to get my 70-200 f2.8IS =)

second case: canon service. they are hit or miss... brought back a point and shoot because the processor was bunk. got it back within the week. sent my 20D in for a focus problem and sensor clean... took 4 weeks... didnt get it back in time for my trip. also didnt correct my lcd that wasnt totally level. im 1 for 1. as for opinions coming from the general public, take the opinion but make a decision on the facts you are given.

tienm23

Oct 4th, 2007, 02:23 PM

hagbard

Oct 4th, 2007, 02:54 PM

Gonna make the jump tonight. I was seriously considering the 17-40 (especially with the current rebates) but after reviewing what I shoot (mostly people inside and at night) I'm gonna go with the Tamron and a 430ex flash...

Hopefully I'm making the right decision !

Beyond my troubles with Canon, I think you're making the right decision. Just be sure you can exchange the lens if you run into trouble. You might want to run a search in photography-on-the.net for "17-50" and read what others are saying (remember, these guys are Canon fanboys, and most really love this Tamron). You should also have a look at their sample shots, here is one I found:

http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/99225314-O.jpg

A review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx

KorruptioN

Oct 4th, 2007, 09:03 PM

Another:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm

goofball

Oct 4th, 2007, 10:01 PM

Tamron 17-50 is a great lens and it's good you're going with an external speedlight as well.

Test it out using fill flash, I know some of the Nikon-mount version of the Tamron has some issues using TTL-BL mode (Balanced Lighting).

My first lens had to be exchanged, it was terrible at f/2.8 and even f/5.6 in terms of sharpness. I also had a slight backfocus issue at infinity. My second lens has no issues at all with this, it's an awesome lens given the price.

hagbard

Oct 5th, 2007, 03:37 PM

Appears many get bad ones, this is why you have to deal with a supplier who will happily exchange the lens. But when you get a good one, they seem to be great.

tienm23

Oct 10th, 2007, 10:32 AM

shervin2

Oct 10th, 2007, 11:20 AM

Can I ask where you got your tammy from tien? I'm in the market looking for one also.

tienm23

Oct 10th, 2007, 11:26 AM

CameraCanada.com

Great guys, I deal with them locally but from what I hear, offer great online service as well. Pretty competitive prices from what I've seen.

http://cameracanada.com/eNet-cart/Product.asp?pid=104A16E&type=1,3

antsii

Oct 10th, 2007, 11:31 AM

I got mine at Downtown Camera, haggled them down a bit using the CameraCanada price

Gdog

Oct 10th, 2007, 02:42 PM

Finally had some time to spend with this lens and overall I'm pretty happy with it.

Pros: Nice and sharp with good contrast, focus is fast, nice lens cover design.

Cons: Noisy AF motor, lens length changes with focal length, no full time manual focus, focus/focal length rings do not operate as smoothly as my L lens.

Although my review looks fairly negative, photography is all about the photos and the lens really shines there. I guess I've just been spoiled with "L" - itist...

Let's see some sample pics! ;)

Although the Tamron is a stellar lens, after testing out some "L" lenses the Tamron's differences do come out. But then again, for the price paid you're getting a good bang for your buck.

tienm23

Oct 14th, 2007, 09:49 PM

Let's see some sample pics! ;)

Although the Tamron is a stellar lens, after testing out some "L" lenses the Tamron's differences do come out. But then again, for the price paid you're getting a good bang for your buck.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/3501/img6112gf1.jpg

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7716/img6078sk1.jpg

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/3735/img6073gp3.jpg

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7991/img6067mf5.jpg

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9429/img6074dt8.jpg

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8000/img6098no8.jpg

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7836/img6105aw5.jpg

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/161/img6106jz6.jpg

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/9172/img6109cs1.jpg

UrbanPoet

Oct 14th, 2007, 09:51 PM

^

holy moly contrast! I want one now...

Gdog

Oct 14th, 2007, 10:02 PM

Looking nice and sharp! Any PP, or are these straight out of the camera?

tienm23

Oct 14th, 2007, 10:23 PM

Looking nice and sharp! Any PP, or are these straight out of the camera?

Just resize and a touch of smart sharpening (20% 1.6 radius)

Having a great time playing with this fella :)

shervin2

Oct 14th, 2007, 10:25 PM

I'm getting one now, I just soiled my pants.

antsii

Oct 15th, 2007, 09:57 AM

Dude, these are awesome. Good work!

CSAgent

Oct 15th, 2007, 12:17 PM

I'm getting one now, I just soiled my pants.

Post here and let us know where you found one.

I tried getting one from Henrys Imaging Show over the weekend and they were sold out with an ETA of 2-3 weeks. GRRRRR!!! Can't wait that long...:|

tienm23

Oct 15th, 2007, 12:32 PM

Post here and let us know where you found one.

I tried getting one from Henrys Imaging Show over the weekend and they were sold out with an ETA of 2-3 weeks. GRRRRR!!! Can't wait that long...:|

Instock at Cameracanada.com. That's where I picked mine up. It's $40 cheaper too ~

http://cameracanada.com/eNet-cart/Product.asp?pid=104A16E

antsii

Oct 15th, 2007, 12:38 PM

Head to Downtown Camera if you can... I quoted the CameraCanada price and got it for $450.

Post here and let us know where you found one.

I tried getting one from Henrys Imaging Show over the weekend and they were sold out with an ETA of 2-3 weeks. GRRRRR!!! Can't wait that long...:|

pm_john

Oct 16th, 2007, 12:35 PM

The Tamron 17-50 is an amazing lens, $450 is a very good price, I got it for $479 six months ago. I have posted some pic in the >>>post The Best Picture You Have Taken<<< thread. The links to them are:

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168729&page=127
http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168729&page=128

You can also see my sig. for more, they were all taken with the same lens.

shinichi

Oct 16th, 2007, 12:53 PM

bpopd

Oct 16th, 2007, 01:26 PM

pm_john, and Teim23 I love your sharp and colorful photos!

CSAgent

Oct 16th, 2007, 02:17 PM

IF money is not an issue, grab Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM instead.

This lens is better in almost every aspect even when compares to the L series.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Actually, tests have shown that Tamron 17-50 colors are more better with contrast than the Canon 17-55. The Canon's was more washed out, however the Canon is sharper and with the IS, you can shoot at 1/10 shutter speed at F/2.8

The Canon reps at this past weekend's Imaging Show confirmed this themselves verbally.