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

[contoursvt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 on my blog for pics I took in Seoul with the 17-50.

[antsii]

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]

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]

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).

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.

[contoursvt]

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]

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]

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.