Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Flossmoor, IL
    Posts
    195

    Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 vs Canon 17-40 f/4L

    Looking for thoughts and comments from someone who has used both of these lenses. Likely getting rid of my kit 28-135 and looking for something in this range to replace it with to fill out my bag for now.

    Yes I realize one is 2.8 and the other is 4. Not sure that matters to me as the indoor shots I use it for would likely have the 430 ex II being used anyway. In reality this lens will probably see more outdoor than indoor use anyway.

    Leaning towards the Canon as the Tamron will not work on full frame. That being said, the upgrade to full frame is probably two years away.

    Thoughts? Thanks in advance.
    Scott
    Canon 40D - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II - Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L - Canon 430 EX II Speedlight

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Dubai, UAE
    Posts
    2,907
    I know it sounds kinda lame to buy the kit lens but if you're using it outdoor, the new 18-55mm is supposed to be quite good. Not sure how it compares to the two you've mentioned but no harm trying it out especially from the price point of view....
    Film
    Nikon EM, Series E lenses 50mm f1.8|28mm f1.8|100mm f2.8, Sigma 80-200mm f4.5-5.6
    Minolta Riva 100AF, Sinpo PQ-3, Olympus mju-III wide 100, Yashica 635
    Digital
    Sony cybershot W90, cybershot T90
    Canon A720i|400D|7D|5DMKII|85mm f1.8|24-105mm f4|135mm f2|40mm f2.8|430EX II*2|BG-E3|BG-E7
    Sigma 24mm f1.8|50mm f2.8|105mm f2.8 Samyang 8mm fisheye
    Portfolio

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Brookfield, MA
    Posts
    1,140
    I've got both. Basically the Tamron 17-50 for the crop body camera and the Canon 17-40L that works on my FF as well as the crop.
    Besides using flash indoors and you may not need 2.8 for that, also consider being able to attain a narrow DOF which is slightly better with the 2.8 if you're doing portraits or similiar. I shoot in low light occasionally and having f/2.8 does help out.

    The Tamron is a slight bit audibly noisy while focusing, but not objectionable. Both lenses have good sharpness, although I think the Canon is slightly better in contrast and color. The Canon is a bit quicker in AF, but but not far ahead of the Tamron. The Tamron did make a trip to Tamron for a front focus problem and with the 6 year warranty I only paid shipping to send it. The lens came back perfect.

    If I was going only own one lens and most of my shooting was outdoors, I'd likely keep the 17-40L and consider a couple of fast primes for the times I want to shoot in low light without flash.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,147
    Why not keep the 28-135 and get something short as well?

Posting Permissions

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