Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 17-40L F/4 Vs. Tamron 17-35 F/2.8-4  
User currently offlineMfz From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 259 posts, RR: 2
Posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7335 times:

Hi everybody!

As I am thinking about replacing the Canon EF-S 18-55 kit lens that came with my 300D I am looking for opinions about my possible options. I definitely want a quality-lens, so my Canon choice would be the 17-40L f/4. The 16-35L f/2.8 is out of my price-range. My other option would be the Tamron 17-35 Di f/2.8-4. I've read some very good comments on the Tamron, and as I already have the Tamron 28-75 XR Di f/2.8 and am very happy with its performance I tend to believe these good ratings of the 17-35. On the other hand after having bought the Canon 100-400L IS I though that I never wanted anything else than Canon L-glass.

I hope I've made my little dilemma clear. And of course money is a factor. The Tamron is about 250€ less than the Canon but if the difference between the two lenses is really big I'd be willing to stretch my budget and and go for the Canon L.

Thank you very much in advance for your opinions and your help.

Best regards,
mfz

P.S. I would not only use the lens on my 300D as standard-lens but also on my EOS 33 as analog wide-angle. Should this influence my choice?

edit: typo...

[Edited 2004-12-19 20:30:57]


Extra Bavariam non est vita et si est non est ita! --- My flights: http://my.flightmemory.com/mfz
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7321 times:

Think about a 12-24 since you already have a 28-75.
This will give you less overlap and a 12-24 is more useful on your 300D anyway.
I have tried the Sigma 12-24 and was quite impressed, for sure it is better then the 15-30 i have now...... not in sharpness or color but it does not flare as much(or better.... not at all.)


Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineAGD From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 204 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7304 times:

Hi Michael,

On a side note... What do you like and dislike about the Tamron 28-75 XR Di f/2.8 ? I just bought a 100-400 as well and I'd like to get something to "replace" the 18-55 EF-S, which isn't very good. I looked into Canon glass as well, but as you said, it's quite expensive. I've been reading several good reviews about the Tamron 28-75 XR Di f/2.8 on fredmiranda, so any feedbacks on this lense from you would be appreciated.

Hope you'll get an answer for your dilemma.

Thanks.

Kind regards,

Alex Grégoire-Denicourt



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineAdamWright From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7293 times:

Get a Canon 16-35L F2.8  Big grin

User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7289 times:

I have used the Tamron 28-75/2.8 for quite some time Alex and it is a fine piece of glass.
It's fast and very sharp, an example made with this lens.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders



Sold it after some time anyway and got myself a Sigma 24-70/2.8EX mainly because it shows a bit less barrel distortion but the Tamron isn't bad at all.

Willem






The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7271 times:

Why would you recommend someone the 16-35 2.8 when the 17-40 is a better piece of glass?

MfZ, get the 17-40. It will be worth saving for. I have one and I love it. It is superb. Not as wide as the 12-24, but very, very sharp and very little distortion.

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineAdamWright From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7246 times:

What makes the 17-40 better than the 16-35 ?

User currently offlineBronko From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 810 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 7227 times:

Willem, do you find that the Sigma focuses faster than your Tamron did? The slow focusing speed of my Tamron 28-75 is irritating, so I am thinking of selling it and buying the Sigma. The extra 4mm on the wide end would be nice too.


Jet City Aviation Photography
User currently offlineIl76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2239 posts, RR: 48
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 7215 times:

What makes the 17-40 better than the 16-35 ?

Testresults... Do a search on the net if you want to know the details.

I have a 17-40 too... It's very good. Hasn't disappointed me yet.  Smile
Eduard

edit: here's a link...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

[Edited 2004-12-20 09:40:38]

User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1071 posts, RR: 33
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 7209 times:

Ahh the old 16-35 vs 17-40 debate.
The 17-40 is a lovely lens if you get a good one.
The 16-35 is an amazing lens if you get a good one.
Be careful that you do not get a dud and make sure you purchase with a return swap warranty from the shop you buy from.
Go the 17-40 you won't be sorry.
Darren



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineMfz From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 259 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 7198 times:

Hi guys!

Thank you very much for your answers so far, I really appreciate that! Looks like it's an almost unanimous vote for the 17-40. I sure wouldn't mind trying the 16-35 but as stated above this is way out of my budget right now. So I guess the 17-40 it shall be then.

@AGD

As for the Tamron XR Di 28-75 f/2.8: I really like it as mine delivers very sharp photos even wide open, and that not only on the EOS 300D with its crop factor but also when I shoot full frame (mostly slides) with my EOS 33. The autofocus might be little slower than Canon's USM but for me this is no real drawback. The built-quality of the lens is good, and as far as I can tell you get as close to Canon L-glass qualitywise as you can in this lens-range, but for 1/3 of the price. In a nutsehll: I wouldn't want to miss mine anymore.
HOWEVER: Beware that apparently there are some bad copies floating around which have a sharpness-problem. So either take your camera to your local photostore and try out the exact copy you want to buy. Or if you order it online make sure that you can return it in case you get one of these bad copies.

Finally, to give yon an impression of the lens's performance check out some of my photos taken with it. I tried to include different light-conditions and focal lengthes.

All photos taken with Canon EOS 300D and Tamron XR Di 28-75 f/2.8


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Fritz
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Fritz




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Fritz
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Fritz



Best regards and thanks again for all your hints and tips!

Cheers,
Michael



Extra Bavariam non est vita et si est non est ita! --- My flights: http://my.flightmemory.com/mfz
User currently offlineAGD From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 204 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 7175 times:

Willem and Micheal, thanks for your comments. The lense sure does look sharp.


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 7153 times:

Willem, do you find that the Sigma focuses faster than your Tamron did? The slow focusing speed of my Tamron 28-75 is irritating, so I am thinking of selling it and buying the Sigma. The extra 4mm on the wide end would be nice too.
Bronko i really liked the Tamron for it's sharpness and color and was never bothered by slow AF but indeed the Sigma 24-70/2.8EX is faster.
For me AF speed is not a problem as long as we are talking about relative short lenses in the region of 24 to 80mm, AF travel distance from one end to the other is so short that differences are within fractions of a second.
Don't worry about it.

Willem

ps. Are we talking about the Canon version ? i did !  Laugh out loud
Some Sigma's seem to perform not as good on a Nikon then on a Canon, don't ask me why but i've read it many times around here.
For example about the 70-200/2.8EX which seems to be slow on a Nikon but performs very good on a Canon.


[Edited 2004-12-20 20:44:15]


The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2823 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7137 times:

On a 1.6 crop sensor like the 300D the 17-40F4L is an awesome choice. I got mine nearly a year ago and it is my most used lens!

It is sharp at F4, little distortion, good contrast and color and really feels nice to use.

Here are some examples,


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Sharps
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Sharps




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Sharps
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Sharps




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Sharps
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Sharps




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Sharps
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Sharps




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Sharps
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Sharps



Chris



5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 17-40 Vs. Sigma 17-35 posted Mon Dec 27 2004 23:50:31 by WorldspotterPL
Is The Canon 17-40L Enough.... posted Wed Nov 10 2004 20:57:12 by Gmonney
Canon 17-40L? posted Fri Sep 3 2004 23:12:18 by BA747-436
Canon 17-85mm Is Experience posted Fri Nov 5 2004 12:35:18 by Maiznblu_757
Canon 75-300 F4.0 VS Tamron 70-300 F4.0 posted Mon Dec 30 2002 09:21:05 by Lugonza_2001
Canon EOS 10D Vs. New Rebel XT posted Thu Sep 8 2005 16:02:27 by Flyfisher1976
Canon 70-200L F/4 Vs. 100-400L: WOW! posted Mon Jun 28 2004 00:42:24 by Scooter
Canon 70-200 Vs 100-400 L Lens posted Sun Oct 13 2002 23:35:28 by Fly-K
Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L posted Thu Feb 10 2005 15:25:23 by Jderden777
17-40 F4 Vs. 17-35 F2.8 posted Tue Jul 20 2004 06:18:01 by Futterman