Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Tamron 17mm-50mm F2.8 and Canon 17mm-40mm F4 L

  1. #1

    Default Tamron 17mm-50mm F2.8 and Canon 17mm-40mm F4 L

    I can observed that photographers are long to grab a Tamron 17mm-50mm F2.8. Believed that at that kind of price getting a F2.8 lens is consider cheap . And I also found out today that some people willing to give up their canon 17mm-40mm F4 L for this Tamron lens.
    Hmmmm......I owned the canon lens and it had served me good. I see no reason why one will give up this canon L lens just for a F2.8 3rd party lens.
    I'm just curious and wish to hear views towards these 2 pieces of glasses. Hope no offends

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Legion
    Posts
    7,751

    Default Re: Tamron 17mm-50mm F2.8 and Canon 17mm-40mm F4 L

    the tamron are said to be sharper and its constant f2.8 and its got a longer focal range! only bad is that it misses some of the L quality like weather-sealing/usm...etc and full frame use

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hougang
    Posts
    1,398

    Default Re: Tamron 17mm-50mm F2.8 and Canon 17mm-40mm F4 L

    Those people have decided that they will stick to APS-C sensor bodies in future I guess.

    Too many people have asked about these 4 lenses liao.
    Compare and see the difference:

    Tamron 17-50 2.8
    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

    Canon 17-40 f4
    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...40_4/index.htm

    Sigma 18-50 2.8
    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

    Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5
    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...2845/index.htm

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ExplorerZ View Post
    the tamron are said to be sharper and its constant f2.8 and its got a longer focal range! only bad is that it misses some of the L quality like weather-sealing/usm...etc and full frame use
    do u mean all tamron lenses r sharper or juz this 17-50 F2.8?

    juz dropping by to share my experience with tamron some years ago.

    i was using the Nikon F80 film camera, & was deciding which lens to buy. the Nikkor 28-105 F3.5-4.5 or the tamron SP 28-105 F2.8 with their LD element. price wise the Nikkor is about 40% cheaper. i was very surprised the tamron was no where near the image quality of the Nikkor.

    till today, i still dun find tamron's give as good colour, contrast & sharpness (ok, maybe the 90mm macro is sharper than canon 100mm macro, but thats only one property out of many from choosing a good lens) as the original. weather sealed or not. if i were to choose, i'll definitely take the canon 17-40mm even tho its slower. my friend has the EFS 17-55 F2.8 & the image quality is pretty close to the L lenses. considering that option?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Tamron 17mm-50mm F2.8 and Canon 17mm-40mm F4 L

    i went down to MS to get some batteries today and happen to tried out the tamron lens..........here's my view........

    tamron ....... = the built is small and light
    = noisy during forcusing
    = a bit to the soft side from F2.8 to F5.6

    Will be good to have this lens if someone does not have this range at this price compare to a canon or nikon.
    But to replace a F4 canon L len hmmmm.....i think i won't do that.
    Just my point of view.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Legion
    Posts
    7,751

    Default Re: Tamron 17mm-50mm F2.8 and Canon 17mm-40mm F4 L

    Quote Originally Posted by nightpiper View Post
    do u mean all tamron lenses r sharper or juz this 17-50 F2.8?

    juz dropping by to share my experience with tamron some years ago.

    i was using the Nikon F80 film camera, & was deciding which lens to buy. the Nikkor 28-105 F3.5-4.5 or the tamron SP 28-105 F2.8 with their LD element. price wise the Nikkor is about 40% cheaper. i was very surprised the tamron was no where near the image quality of the Nikkor.

    till today, i still dun find tamron's give as good colour, contrast & sharpness (ok, maybe the 90mm macro is sharper than canon 100mm macro, but thats only one property out of many from choosing a good lens) as the original. weather sealed or not. if i were to choose, i'll definitely take the canon 17-40mm even tho its slower. my friend has the EFS 17-55 F2.8 & the image quality is pretty close to the L lenses. considering that option?
    since this thread is talking about tamron 17-50, so im refering to his. not all...

  7. #7

    Default Re: Tamron 17mm-50mm F2.8 and Canon 17mm-40mm F4 L

    Quote Originally Posted by jesser View Post
    .....
    But to replace a F4 canon L len hmmmm.....i think i won't do that.
    Just my point of view.
    Another supporter help me to keep my trusty 17-40 F/4L
    Canon 40D|17-55 f/2.8 IS|100 f/2.8 Macro|135 f/2L|300 f/4L IS|430ex|BG-E2

  8. #8

    Default Re: Tamron 17mm-50mm F2.8 and Canon 17mm-40mm F4 L

    Depends on need actually

    It all boils down to Money and Bokeh

    Tamron has better bokeh, is a full stop faster, lighter and cheaper.
    Canon 17-40L is proven, but dated technology. F4 and more expensive.

    I had the chance to try out both the Tammy 17-50mm F2.8 and Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS. Went with the Canon due to IS, but was impressed by the Tammy

    IMO, the 17-40mm is a good all purpose lense but once you start to appreciate bokeh @ F2.8, you'll understand why people are grabbing the 17-50mm range F2.8 lenses.
    Sigma 18-50mm F2.8
    Tamron 17-50mm F2.8
    Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS
    Tokina 16-50mm F2.8

    Each have their own view, but i set aside the Canon 17-40mm F4 for the Canon 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS and later, the Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hougang
    Posts
    1,398

    Default Re: Tamron 17mm-50mm F2.8 and Canon 17mm-40mm F4 L

    Quote Originally Posted by ST_sg View Post
    Another supporter help me to keep my trusty 17-40 F/4L
    If a lens to u is trusty and u r happy using it and it's results, be it 3rd party or L, then u don't need to think of changing, regardless of what anyone else says. Continue using it to produce great pics and be happy.

    I am so happy with my Tamron 17-50 2.8 and it's results that I only smile when someone claims that lens X is better then Y lens, who cares. I don't even think about "upgrading" to the f/4L, if u consider it an upgrade (ok la, price wise, brand wise and prestige wise, it's an upgrade).
    Last edited by clicknick; 7th November 2006 at 09:06 AM.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Tamron 17mm-50mm F2.8 and Canon 17mm-40mm F4 L

    Quote Originally Posted by clicknick View Post
    If a lens to u is trusty and u r happy using it and it's results, be it 3rd party or L, then u don't need to think of changing, regardless of what anyone else says. Continue using it to produce great pics and be happy.

    I am so happy with my Tamron 17-50 2.8 and it's results that I only smile when someone claims that lens X is better then Y lens, who cares. I don't even think about "upgrading" to the f/4L, if u consider it an upgrade (ok la, price wise, brand wise and prestige wise, it's an upgrade).
    agreed, the only upgrade most people need is, have more time to shoot!
    Canon 40D|17-55 f/2.8 IS|100 f/2.8 Macro|135 f/2L|300 f/4L IS|430ex|BG-E2

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    NTU and Wdls
    Posts
    2,622

    Default Re: Tamron 17mm-50mm F2.8 and Canon 17mm-40mm F4 L

    I'm a photographer, not an equipment collector. Important is what gives good images. As a sigma 18-50 f2.8 lens user, I wouldn't downgrade to a 17-40 f4l. I've tried a tammy 17-50 recently, and I'm impressed, but not overly. I'm very impressed by the canon 17-55f2.8 IS though, even if it vignettes worse than my sigma.. Hee if anything I'll be upgrading to that.
    And no, the 17-40f4l isn't even anywhere in my plans.

    Maybe the copy of the F4L i used and tested was a dud, but.. it loses in resolution + sharpness at F4 in comparison to my lens at F2.8.. I'm ok with losing 0.5 seconds of my life during AF.. I don't own a 1series camera (don't plan to in the near future) so the lens is not weather/water/dust resistant even if I used it..
    I'm only not OK with paying more $$ for poorer image quality.

    Anyway WRT http://forum.clubsnap.com/showpost.p...9&postcount=18
    FF cameras aren't going to be affordable anytime in the next 2 years.. Why torture yourself with a more expensive FF lens while you can buy a cheaper APSC lens which gives better image quality? We ARE talking as photographers, not equipment collectors ya..

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •