Reading mode: Light Dark

Can tamron 17-50 2.8 / sigma 17-70 hold against Canon 17-40L?

Go to last post
T

twan

Senior Member
Messages
2,798
Reaction score
117
Location
NL
How does this kind of 3th party lenses compare against canon's 17-40. The range isn't that different. Especially not with the tamron. What I'm interested in is image quality.

The canon seems to focus very fast. The 3th party less but can they track for example a flying bird?

A thirth question is size. I think the canon is mutch bigger or isn't?
 
IQ of these 3rdparty lenses seems to be very good, maybe better than the canon (see http://www.photozone.de ).

But tracking a flighing bird with a max of 40mm/50mm or even 70mm is really not usefull because you will only see a little blob of pixels in the middle of your frame.
Although ... if you are shooting ostrich or condors ... ;-)
--
Canon EOS 33/300D/30D
 
hmm you've made a point .............. I was to fast with posting I gues........
but with about kids, city live etc.... where the range is usefull for?
 
I would recommend the 18-55 kit lens. It has a great range for a beginner. The image quality is very good. If you want to shoot birds you might want to buy a telephoto lens.
 
that's all you got? photozone?

i'm thinking about getting the tamron myself, but to say it's better than the 17-40 is just assinine.

no 3rd party lens is better than the canon eos 17-40.

none. nunca. nada.
janaco said:
IQ of these 3rdparty lenses seems to be very good, maybe better
than the canon (see http://www.photozone.de ).
But tracking a flighing bird with a max of 40mm/50mm or even 70mm
is really not usefull because you will only see a little blob of
pixels in the middle of your frame.
Although ... if you are shooting ostrich or condors ... ;-)
--
Canon EOS 33/300D/30D
Click to expand...
 
mr nice guy said:
that's all you got? photozone?

i'm thinking about getting the tamron myself, but to say it's
better than the 17-40 is just assinine.
Click to expand...
I'll take the risk.

If you need/want f/2.8 the Tamron will beat the heck out of the Canon 17-40 at any time. Trust me.

Also, the Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX is well regarded in this range of lenses.

Regards,
Roger

--



My on-line albums: http://atb.dyndns.org/photos/index.htm
 
Roger Nordin said:
mr nice guy said:
that's all you got? photozone?

i'm thinking about getting the tamron myself, but to say it's
better than the 17-40 is just assinine.
Click to expand...
I'll take the risk.

If you need/want f/2.8 the Tamron will beat the heck out of the
Canon 17-40 at any time. Trust me.
Click to expand...
only in certain situations. not always. i have iso 3200.
Roger Nordin said:
Also, the Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX is well regarded in this range of lenses.
Click to expand...
no it's not. my camera store won't even stock sigma because its garbage.
Roger Nordin said:
Regards,
Roger

--



My on-line albums: http://atb.dyndns.org/photos/index.htm
Click to expand...
 
mr nice guy said:
i'm thinking about getting the tamron myself, but to say it's
better than the 17-40 is just assinine.

no 3rd party lens is better than the canon eos 17-40.

none. nunca. nada.
janaco said:
IQ of these 3rdparty lenses seems to be very good, maybe better
than the canon (see http://www.photozone.de ).
But tracking a flighing bird with a max of 40mm/50mm or even 70mm
is really not usefull because you will only see a little blob of
pixels in the middle of your frame.
Although ... if you are shooting ostrich or condors ... ;-)
--
Canon EOS 33/300D/30D
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Then why don't you buy the 17-40?
 
i already had 2 of them.
ffmitch said:
mr nice guy said:
i'm thinking about getting the tamron myself, but to say it's
better than the 17-40 is just assinine.

no 3rd party lens is better than the canon eos 17-40.

none. nunca. nada.
janaco said:
IQ of these 3rdparty lenses seems to be very good, maybe better
than the canon (see http://www.photozone.de ).
But tracking a flighing bird with a max of 40mm/50mm or even 70mm
is really not usefull because you will only see a little blob of
pixels in the middle of your frame.
Although ... if you are shooting ostrich or condors ... ;-)
--
Canon EOS 33/300D/30D
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Then why don't you buy the 17-40?
Click to expand...
 
mr nice guy said:
mr nice guy said:
If you need/want f/2.8 the Tamron will beat the heck out of the
Canon 17-40 at any time. Trust me.
Click to expand...
only in certain situations. not always. i have iso 3200.
Click to expand...
Sorry but the ISO does not control DOF.

Besides, ISO 3200 is a poor substitue for ISO 1600.
mr nice guy said:
mr nice guy said:
Also, the Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX is well regarded in this range of lenses.
Click to expand...
no it's not. my camera store won't even stock sigma because its
garbage.
Click to expand...
Ah, of course. ahem

Regards,
Roger

--



My on-line albums: http://atb.dyndns.org/photos/index.htm
 
Hi mr nice try ;-)

You owned two Canon 17-40 but want to switch to the Tamron, right? So the IQ is not better with the Canon?

And yes, the 17-40L is really much better - on a FullFram-Camera for what it was designed. :-) On a Cropped sensor other Lenses are better.
--
Canon EOS 33/300D/30D
 
and i'm willing to try whatever performs best.

which one do you recommend?
janaco said:
Hi mr nice try ;-)
You owned two Canon 17-40 but want to switch to the Tamron, right?
So the IQ is not better with the Canon?
And yes, the 17-40L is really much better - on a FullFram-Camera
for what it was designed. :-) On a Cropped sensor other Lenses are
better.
--
Canon EOS 33/300D/30D
Click to expand...
 
mr nice guy said:
and i'm willing to try whatever performs best.
which one do you recommend?
Click to expand...
Choosing from the given list of the original poster and thinking of a cropped sensor I would take the Tamron for the f/2.8. I own the Sigma 17-70 which gives extra reach and very welcome Macro, but f/2.8 "only" from 17 to about 20mm.

An other thing yout stated is "I have ISO3200", but dont forget that IQ goes rapidly down at higher ISO - so that a kit-lens would be enough ;-)
--
Canon EOS 33/300D/30D
 
Tamron

cheaper price, smaller size, lighter weight, one-stop faster aperture (and the f2.8 quality is very usable), 10mm extra length....

Canon

better build, weather sealing, USM, FF compatibility.

Both sharp at all apertures, both focus fast and accurately, both are very resistent to flare, etc. Both lenses according to all the pro reviews i have read seem to rate the optical performance as good as nearly identical.

For me the Tamron wins out becuase the only thing I would miss is the weather sealing, on an occasional rainy day. The Tamron advantages though far outweigh that.. for me .

But if you are someone with 'L' tatoo'ed on your forehead and branded on your behind...
mr nice guy said:
i'm thinking about getting the tamron myself, but to say it's
better than the 17-40 is just assinine.

no 3rd party lens is better than the canon eos 17-40.

none. nunca. nada.
janaco said:
IQ of these 3rdparty lenses seems to be very good, maybe better
than the canon (see http://www.photozone.de ).
But tracking a flighing bird with a max of 40mm/50mm or even 70mm
is really not usefull because you will only see a little blob of
pixels in the middle of your frame.
Although ... if you are shooting ostrich or condors ... ;-)
--
Canon EOS 33/300D/30D
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top