Don't know which one anymore?

S

six6six

Messages
461
Name
Sam
Edit My Images
Yes
Right let me start off with, my current lens isn't wide enough anymore, I find myself wanting that little bit of wideness in a lens.

I like taking landscape shots and portraits of people. Other than that I also enjoy going on holidays with the family. I've been lusting after an L lens in particular the 17 - 40 F4, but my problem is that when im on holiday for instance i am off to disneyland paris in may and would like some (alot) of night time parade shots, and a friend has suggested that the Tamron 17 50 F2.8 is probably on par with the Canon 17 40 F4 with regards to image sharpness with the added bonus of a F2.8 aperature.

:help: So the big question is what do I get? If I go the L glass route I wont be able to get a 430EX and would need to up the ISO on my 50D which I find is noisy above ISO200 and I'd need to save up for the L glass anyway.. :thinking:
 
I would go for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 over the Canon 17-40.

The Range on the 17-40 is not great on a crop body, its not wide nor much in the way of a zoom. The canon is f4 and other lens can offer f2.8. Yes the build is good but I would rather have the Tamron.

Other lens to think about are:

Canon 17-55 f2.8 or maybe the canon 15-85

Canon 24-105 f4 is also a nice lens but no wider than you already have.

Another thought would be sigma 10-20 to work along side your current lens.

But its hard to beat the Tamron 17-50 for the price.

Are you going to stay with a crop body or plan to move up to full frame?
 
Last edited:
another option is buy the lens you really want,the canon 17-40L and hire a lens for your Holiday.
 
The 50D shouldn't be too noisy at ISO200, my 40D is fine above that.

How about the Canon 17-55mm, IS and f/2.8, sounds like the best of both worlds.
 
Forget the L badge and you've got a 17-40mm f4 v a 17-50mm f2.8.

It should be a no brainer on APS-C.

I bought the Tamron over the Canon, it's sharp and it's constant f2.8, what more could you want at the price.
 
Unless you're considering going FF, I wouldn't bother with the 17-40 as the focal length is short and there are sharper lenses available (see it vs. the 15-85 for instance here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0 ).

IMHO, you have a choice of 3 lenses:

  • Canon 17-55 IS 2.8. fast 2.8, great image quality, very expensive (cheapest I've found is kerso on here at approaching £700)
  • Canon 15-85 IS 3.5-5.6: obvious downside is that it is 1-2 stops slower than the 17-55. Having said that, the IS is supposed to be excellent but obviously can't freeze low light action. Cheaper by about £200 than the 17-55 Canon
  • Tamron 17-50 NON VC 2.8: cheap (less than £300). No VC but very good image quality.

I'm just going through the same dilemma at the mo for a body for Ms arad85. I keep coming down to the 7D/15-85 as the best all rounder plus something like a nifty fifty for real low light work. You could buy the 15-85 AND something like a 35mm f2 for the same price as the 17-55 Canon.
 
woof woof said:
I bought the Tamron over the Canon, it's sharp and it's constant f2.8, what more could you want at the price.
Click to expand...
Nothing at the price, but IS would be nice (whilst retaining the quality).
 
For IS you buy the OS version, if there is one... or the similar Sigma, for IS + USM you buy the Canon 17-55 IS USM and you pay more.
 
Last edited:
I think there's possibly the chance of over thinking all this.

If IS is a priority feature I'm pretty sure that in the real world any IQ difference will be negligible.

Personally I bought the Tamron because it has a constant f2.8 and is small and light and all these things matter to me. The Siggy 18-50mm f2.8 would also be a perfectly valid choice. The Canon 17-55mm may have better IQ but in the real world I'm pretty sure that any differences will be insignificant. It has IS and USM but it's bigger and a lot more expensive than the other lens but if you want f2.8, IS and USM and don't mind the bulk and additional cost and having to pay through the nose for a plastic lens hood that the others give you for free... it's a valid choice.

IMVHO the 17-40mm f4 isn't a great choice for APS-C but as a wide on full frame it makes sense and would also make sense for someone who wanted a lens to use on both full frame (film or digital) and APS-C and didn't mind the f4.
 
woof woof said:
I think there's possibly the chance of over thinking all this.

If IS is a priority feature I'm pretty sure that in the real world any IQ difference will be negligible.
Click to expand...
If that were the case, everyone would just buy the cheapest lenses.... I can certainly see a difference, even as a thumbnail, between photos taken with the 70-200F4 and the kit lens.

woof woof said:
IMVHO the 17-40mm f4 isn't a great choice for APS-C but as a wide on full frame it makes sense and would also make sense for someone who wanted a lens to use on both full frame (film or digital) and APS-C and didn't mind the f4.
Click to expand...
Yup. Precisely, which is why I said the same above. I think we're saying the same thing actually.

Again, as I said, I'm favouring the 15-85/7D combo at the moment with possibly another lens for low light.
 
arad85 said:
If that were the case, everyone would just buy the cheapest lenses.... I can certainly see a difference, even as a thumbnail, between photos taken with the 70-200F4 and the kit lens.
Click to expand...

Maybe you have Supermans SuperVision :) Wise man said long ago that lens sharpness isn't an issue and I'd pretty much agree with that, unless on screen pixel peeping.
 
woof woof said:
Maybe you have Supermans SuperVision :) Wise man said long ago that lens sharpness isn't an issue and I'd pretty much agree with that, unless on screen pixel peeping.
Click to expand...
Maybe I do have good vision ;) but wise man at some other time must also have said that there is a point lens sharpness does become an issue otherwise any old piece of glass will do.....

The higher the number of pixels on the sensor, the more noticeable it will become - a 7D is an entirely different beast to a 20D (which is what you say you have) for example.
 
Wow, just got back from work and seen all the posts. Thanks for the replies everyone... some real good advice/tips.. everything will be taken on-board.. I think I am sold on the Tammy 2.8, I like the idea that it is smaller and lighter + cheap too..

and about the full frame goodness, yes there is that little sparkle in the back of my head, although I don't really wanna mention it to the other half yet, as I've only just upgraded to the 50d...

with regards to the ISO noise at 200 not 2000, what i meant was after 200, as soon as I hit ISO 400 it is noticeable if I am zoomed in at 100% in Photoshop. ISO 800 / 1600 is even more prominent. 3200 Is definitely a no go zone for me.

But there again I might just be a little too picky..? i don't know..
 
If you're lumping gear around in the great outdoors, shooting landscapes in all weathers then the 17-40 F4 L is a good choice. It's a wide angle on a FF and wide (ish) on a crop. IS isn't a issue on a tripod and neither is f4.

If the above doesn't apply then the L factor is wasted as there are better choices for a general lens.

Canon 17-55 would be the choice for me on a crop or if the reach is more important than the aperture - the 15-85.
 
buy the tamron...great lens.

don't buy into the canon worship. The tamron lens earns me a living. Can't find any justification whatsoever optically to change to the nikon 17-55. great lens.

As for weather... meh, who cares. My tamron has had a lot of abuse and laughed in the face of it all...
 
I've owned the canon 17-55 and the Tamron and can happily say the IQ difference is negligible. IS does make a difference though, but the biggest difference is AF accuracy. The Tamron is much more hit and miss even in good light.
 
six6six said:
with regards to the ISO noise at 200 not 2000, what i meant was after 200, as soon as I hit ISO 400 it is noticeable if I am zoomed in at 100% in Photoshop. ISO 800 / 1600 is even more prominent. 3200 Is definitely a no go zone for me.

But there again I might just be a little too picky..? i don't know..
Click to expand...

Have you tried using the noise reduction software in Canon's own DPP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top