Unsure which way to go!

F

faddy

Messages
198
Edit My Images
No
I posted here last week saying my wife killed my current Tamron 17-50. Now even though i liked the lens i just needed some change. Now im considering on either getting the Sigma 17-70 or go the whole hog and get a Canon 17-40 L lens. I dont really use my camera (Canon 7d) as much as I do but do take pics of the kids for portraits. What would you suggest? I havent really got stupid amounts to spend around £400 max on a lens so what would you guys recommend.. A new Tamron, the Sigma or the 17-40!
 
what advantage has the 17-40 got over the 17-50, its slower(f/4 not f/2.8), less focal range, the supplied hood is next to uselelss on the crop sensor bodies.

the 17-70, is a great all rounder but its max aperture is f/2.8 at 17mm and f/4.5 at 70mm. I think the tamron is sharper than this lens too.

my thoughts are just to get another tamron.
 
The Tamron you had is the best sub £400 lens there is.....the Canon is alot more expensvie and (by all accounts) not loads better, I had the Sigma 17-70, its good but I doubt its as good as the Tamron.

The 17-40 IMO is too small a range, I'd only get one for a wide angle lens on a FF camera.
 
On the 7D, the 3 lenses of choice appear to be Tamron 17-50 non-VC, Canon 15-85 or Canon 17-55. I would seriously think twice about buying a 17-40L if you only have crop....
 
I had the newer VC edition which i thought was fine! Are the non-VC editions any better.. I hear the problems with soft lenses were evident on the older edition.. What do i miss out by buying the Non-VC edition!
 
I've not seen anywhere where the VC is claimed as sharper with newer copies.
 
Other than heresay ;) I'd like to see a more controlled test by someone who tests lenses....
 
The Canon 17-40L is most likely better built, and will probably last a longer time than a Sigma or Tamron lens, (so far only had two lenses fail, both are Sigma) but not really the best choice for a crop sensor body. If your main use will be shooting portraits, maybe consider getting a prime instead of a zoom? Ideal lens would probably be the Canon EFS 17-55 f2.8, but you'd have to spend a fair bit more than £400. For £400 I'd vote for the Tamron.
 
Tamron 17-50 non-VC without a question- bought one recently used for £190, was very chuffed with that purchase!

I have also 'heard' that the non-VC has better IQ -- i saw it on several reviews as well, although I'm not about to go trawling through them all.

Just check for back-front focus issues, which are not so uncommon I hear- but again this is just what I heard on forums!
 
Digital camera May issue 2011 have a review of the tamron 17-50 vc and suggest its very sharp so much so it got the best for canon award.

They said they tested a copy last year when it was 1st realised and said it was soft but the new copy they were sent was great in all areas.

So it could be early models were a bit soft and now they have improved or quality control is a bit hit and miss.
 
tris101 said:
Digital camera May issue 2011 have a review of the tamron 17-50 vc and suggest its very sharp so much so it got the best for canon award.

They said they tested a copy last year when it was 1st realised and said it was soft but the new copy they were sent was great in all areas.

So it could be early models were a bit soft and now they have improved or quality control is a bit hit and miss.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this.. it seems like the non-vc vs vc has got me even more confused..

so 17-40L is a good build but slower
Sigma -crap build
Tamron - Good but non vc is best but the vc could also be good :bang:
 
IF I only had that budget it would have to be the Tamron vc.

I looked at this lens but saved a little (well alot) and got the canon in the end but did ponder over the tamron alot.

spike
 
If your wife can get close to it again, you'll have to get 17-40 (but not for portraits - really too short!). The other are just too fragile for some people. if it happens once, it will happen twice!
 
Ross_Curtis said:
I understand the 17-40 doesn't perform that well on a crop sensor.
Click to expand...

You understand wrongly then.

It may not be designed for APS-C, but the pictures that it produces on them are superb.
 
Ross_Curtis said:
I understand the 17-40 doesn't perform that well on a crop sensor.
Click to expand...
As above, it is a great lens. The problem is it's not the best value for money on crop as the range isn't great (17mm is a standard wideangle on crop, but 40mm is a bit short), and has f4 aperture so isn't particularly fast and doesn't have IS. On crop, I reckon you'd be better off with a 15-85 IS for similar (actually less) money.
 
Save a bit more and go for the Canon 17-55 f2.8. It's faster, better made than the Tamron, and is great for portraits. It is my "do it all" lens for my 7D, and even when I get round to adding a 5D2 to my bag I can't see me giving this one up.

As far as I am aware, the 17-40 isn't weatherproofed, and the glass is of similar quality, so you'll not be losing anything.

Steve
 
Jelster said:
As far as I am aware, the 17-40 isn't weatherproofed, and the glass is of similar quality, so you'll not be losing anything.

Steve
Click to expand...
It is with a filter attached.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top