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

[jesser]

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:thumbsup: . 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

 

[ExplorerZ]

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

 

[clicknick]

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/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm

Canon 17-40 f4
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1740_4/index.htm

Sigma 18-50 2.8
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1850_28/index.htm

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1770_2845/index.htm

 

[nightpiper]

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?

 

[jesser]

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.

 

[ExplorerZ]

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...

 

[ST_sg]

.....
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

 

[tmfwy]

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.

 

[clicknick]

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).

 

[ST_sg]

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!

 

[unseen]

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.php?p=2589149&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..