Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD Asph. IF vs ef17-40 f4L

[stevens]

Which lens is opticallt perform better om 1.6x crop camera?

[Gizmore]

sir, you are talking abt the red rubber band L lens with a third party lens.

it's obvious which is the winner.

though some argue the tarmon can almost match the L glass. but then again, its almost match, but i doubt the tarmon is on par.

[stevens]

thanks for your kind answer.

Difinitely L is winner, I am also agree on this. However, I have gone through some lens reviewing website, they did not give same high rating on ef17-40 f4L. If you get good copy you are lucky, if you get bad copy, I don't think we could easily change for new copy like USA consumers.

Trust "L" is good, sometime trust "L" too much could be poisonous.

[zcf]

See to believe, compare Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 vs Canon 17-40 f4L . Tamron centre look better even at f/2.8, too bad that Tamron's not a full frame lens, although can't rule out sample variation.

[Gizmore]

Originally Posted by stevens thanks for your kind answer. Difinitely L is winner, I am also agree on this. However, I have gone through some lens reviewing website, they did not give same high rating on ef17-40 f4L. If you get good copy you are lucky, if you get bad copy, I don't think we could easily change for new copy like USA consumers. Trust "L" is good, sometime trust "L" too much could be poisonous.

i think the major difference is certainly the price and your available budget.

comparing nitty gritty details like center sharpness or whatever one lens win and the other looses.

and i say unless its for printing in huge size, then certainly these nitty gritty details count nothing all.

for my lens purchase, i usually set a budget first.

for my f2.8 lens, i set aside 1k. the canon 17-55 f2.8 is about 1.5k. additional $500. i can find that additional 500 easily. and i'm quite sure that with canon, i will not be disappointed.

but in the end, i settle for a second hand tamron f2.8. why, after looking at the reviews and stuff, i can live with the lower quality. and in terms of price/performance, tamron is really value for money.

and even though i didn't have a very sharp copy tamron, it doesn't bother me too much since, my priority is in my photography technique. my philosophy is that technical quality ( sharpness) only comes into play for prints. other then that, a decent quality lens for me right now suffice for me.

my personal experience on the 2 lens.

[MarkTan89]

Optically I think the 17-40L would perform better in broad daylight. It isn't christened as an L lens for no reason. If you shoot in low-light often, then the Tamron would perform slightly better but build quality and speed loses out to 17-40L.

[stevens]

anyone could upload pictutes shot by ten lenses, thanks

[Kit]

Originally Posted by stevens thanks for your kind answer. Difinitely L is winner, I am also agree on this. However, I have gone through some lens reviewing website, they did not give same high rating on ef17-40 f4L. If you get good copy you are lucky, if you get bad copy, I don't think we could easily change for new copy like USA consumers. Trust "L" is good, sometime trust "L" too much could be poisonous.

Well, the reputable shops here do provide 7 days exchange if you are not satisfied with your copy.

[Headshotzx]

Originally Posted by stevens anyone could upload pictutes shot by ten lenses, thanks

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/canon/

[stevens]

Thanks for the linkage, at WA , Canon lost to Nikon.

[m3lv1nh0]

Originally Posted by Gizmore i think the major difference is certainly the price and your available budget. comparing nitty gritty details like center sharpness or whatever one lens win and the other looses. and i say unless its for printing in huge size, then certainly these nitty gritty details count nothing all. for my lens purchase, i usually set a budget first. for my f2.8 lens, i set aside 1k. the canon 17-55 f2.8 is about 1.5k. additional $500. i can find that additional 500 easily. and i'm quite sure that with canon, i will not be disappointed. but in the end, i settle for a second hand tamron f2.8. why, after looking at the reviews and stuff, i can live with the lower quality. and in terms of price/performance, tamron is really value for money. and even though i didn't have a very sharp copy tamron, it doesn't bother me too much since, my priority is in my photography technique. my philosophy is that technical quality ( sharpness) only comes into play for prints. other then that, a decent quality lens for me right now suffice for me. my personal experience on the 2 lens.

Amen to this!

[STEV]

i miss my 17-40mm right after i sold it...

[stevens]

Hi, Stev,

May we know what is the reason let you sell your 17-40 f4L?

[gymak90]

Personally, I'm quite skeptic about how a letter 'L' can churn out superb pics, until I see reliable studio tests and comparisons.
I'm not saying L lenses are like any other lenses out there. Perhaps really there better elements in the lens, made with better equipment. But bear in mind that Canon's aim is to maximise profits, so the difference in optics that L lenses provide may just be a perceived differences. So before a conclusion is made, do a fair test first.

[STEV]

Originally Posted by stevens Hi, Stev, May we know what is the reason let you sell your 17-40 f4L?

seldom shot w this lens, find it only consists 10percent of my shoots.
after selling it, find that i got to walk back few steps to get wider shots... sometime the few steps is quite important when u have no more space to move...

[iboey]

used both. Sold away the tamron. Color cant match contrasty 17-40. Hunts at low light. Purple fringing. This 3 were enough for me to stay away from tamron.

[stevens]

Brother,

why you don't buy EF 35 F1.4L? it is the sharpest Canon lens that its sharpness contrast and colour saturation EF16-35 could not match.