The usual question... 17-40 vs 17-55...

It is possible, I agree. It was a rental from Adorama. The lens had a Hoya filter on it that was impossible to remove, at least I did not want to force it too hard. The filter looked clean enough from inside.

what about tamron 17-50 2.8? i actually sold my 17-40L after getting the tamron.

17-55 IS is probably the best overall (but as you say at a price. i have never tried this one myself though)

ktwse said:

I have been trying out a Tokina 16-50 for a week or so but sadly I'm
not all that happy with the resulting shots. The CA is fairly bad,
and they seem to be lacking the crisp sharpness of certain Canon
lenses I've tried (the 17-55 as well as my own 10-22).

So I'm going to return it, and the natural choice would be to go with
the 17-55 instead. However, I can't help but wonder if it's really
worth the money... IS is good for available light but I mostly use a
flash indoors anyways... At the same time, I can get a very good deal
on a 17-40 right now, and that will give me plenty of money left to
spend on eg a tripod for certain shots.

So the question is:

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS

or

EF 17-40 f/4 L + tripod

(Don't worry about the long range - I have an EF-S 60 macro that I
like to use for portrait shots).

or, the outsider option...

Sell my EOS 400D and go with an EOS 40D + EF-S 17-85 (I won't be able
to afford the 17-55 straight away if I go this route).

It so bloody hard to make these decisions and any input is much
appreciated...

Click to expand...

bronxbombers said:

what about tamron 17-50 2.8? i actually sold my 17-40L after getting
the tamron.
17-55 IS is probably the best overall (but as you say at a price. i
have never tried this one myself though)

Click to expand...

How was the Tamron in comparison to the 17-40? Not just in sharpness, but overall, including IQ, contrast, etc.?

abana

The 17-40L is a good lens, but very bad value for money.

Needing to be FF compatible makes it too expensive compare to EF-S like types.

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a better lens, and MUCH more value for money. It's a little more expensive though.

If you don't care about IS, you could think about the Tamron or Sigma 18-50 f/2.8's.

If you don't care about f/2.8, you might actually consider the 18-55 IS, which seems very sharp from all the test.

I did a comparison of the two lenses some time ago. See this thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=22995533

Note: mine may have been a bad sample, but overall, the Tamron was sharper.

Abana said:

bronxbombers said:

what about tamron 17-50 2.8? i actually sold my 17-40L after getting
the tamron.
17-55 IS is probably the best overall (but as you say at a price. i
have never tried this one myself though)

Click to expand...

How was the Tamron in comparison to the 17-40? Not just in sharpness,
but overall, including IQ, contrast, etc.?

abana

Click to expand...

--
My gear is listed in my profile. My name is Jay.

First of all: thanks for all the input! This forum is such a great place for tips and help - you guys all rock.

With that said, there's some very good comments in this thread. Combined with my own experience of the lenses mentioned, various tests and lots of sample images I am leaning towards the 17-55 IS.

I still think the 17-40 is probably a little better at producing "great" shots straight out of the camera, thanks to the wonderful color and contrast, something I think is a little bit lacking in the 17-55 which appears sharper for sure but just a little bit more bland... I may be wrong, feel free to correct me, but this, the build quality, flare resistance and weather sealing could still sway me.

However, the 17-55 is much more versatile, has better sharpness, low light capabilities, range and is almost as good at producing those really rich, colourful shots (i can't really put my finger on it, but I hope you know what I mean).

The price premium for the 17-55 here in Sweden is about $500. Still worth it?

I've tried the Sigma and the Tamron and I honestly don't think either of them really live up to this. Besides, the Tamron is loud and the Sigma fairly slow, and both feel like they would break if you stared at them long and hard enough.

The 18-55 IS sure sounds like a good lens, but just doesn't seem to match either of my two alternatives at their respective strengths. Sure, it's much cheaper, but I'd rather pay more straight away and not have to wonder whether I made the right choice later on.

I don't like the 17-40 F4 on a crop camera and never will. On a crop camera, the 17-40 serves as a compromised general purpose lens. Not enough aperture nor reach.

I believe all of the following are better choices:

Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS (I have this. Drawback: expensive?)
Tamron 17-50 F2.8 (very good lens. Drawback: no IS. Maybe a bit soft at F2.8)
Sigma 18-50 F2.8 (should be similar to the Tamron)

Canon 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS (very promising, inexpensive Drawback: aperture of course)

I had the same problem, decided on the Tamron just for economy reasons. Went to the store and tried 3 of them. All frontfocusing heavy!So Tamron was out...

Finllay I decided in the 18-55 as well (in the store...) paying the $500 bonus (yes, I'm in Sweden to) over the 17-40. The main one for me here is the f2.8 compared with the f4.

It would have been an easy choice if it wasnt for the red ring... I can even understand why I care about a red ring! Canon has really suceeded in marketing there. In the end I did choose the lens I wanted rather than the lens with the red ring

Played with it for one day, and its easily the best lens I owned...

Jonas

Tell us whether you have dust problems in a month or two...

...and what about the new(ish) 24-70 2.8L, with possibly a 10-22 to fill in the bottom end (on a crop sensor).

Image quality, build quality, constant aperture, the ability to go full frame one day.....and do you REALLY need IS at these less-than-tele focal lengths?

--
Aspiring amateur

Abana said:

bronxbombers said:

what about tamron 17-50 2.8? i actually sold my 17-40L after getting
the tamron.
17-55 IS is probably the best overall (but as you say at a price. i
have never tried this one myself though)

Click to expand...

How was the Tamron in comparison to the 17-40? Not just in sharpness,
but overall, including IQ, contrast, etc.?

abana

Click to expand...

it seemed to be slightly less contrasty near the center and slightly more contrasty near the edges. maybe just slightly more CA at 17mm but definitely less CA at the long end (by 50mm on the tamron it is more or less CA free).

extreme, extreme corners due to field curvature are often less sharp, but edges and center seemed perhaps sharper, especially edges.

the 17-40L definitely has good contrast and color. better than the tamron 28-75. the 17-50 seems closer in these respects though. although the tamron 28-75 might have the best extreme cornes and edges of them all (then again 28mm is easier to make)

the extra 10mm was handy.
the f/2.8 can be very handy at times.

the AF is MUCH nosier, not sure if it is really any slower though, biut didn't carefully compare.

the AF accuracy seemed a bit dodgy at times on both, the tamron actually seemed a bit better, even indoors, although it does have its misses. didn't entirely trust AF in all situations on either.

first 17-40L i tried had some decentering.

i have heard people getting bad tamrons too though and have seen evidence of copies worse than my first 17-40l. so in either case i think a lens that needs some care to check the optics andnot just the focus calibration (most lenses really just fail in calibration moreso than the optics).

although that said i had great luck. both my tamrons were optically perfect on first copies.

anyway doing tests at times it seemed each lens would slightly win every other test. finally took into field and seemed tamron did a bit better overall and it had 2.8 and was more compact and an extra 10mm so i figured the L is the one to sell.

bronxbombers said:

anyway doing tests at times it seemed each lens would slightly win
every other test. finally took into field and seemed tamron did a bit
better overall and it had 2.8 and was more compact and an extra 10mm
so i figured the L is the one to sell.

Click to expand...

Makes sense. And thanks for the info. BTW, what is 'decentering'?

abana

The 24-70 is a brick... It's totally unbalanced on my 400D, and after having tried it a couple of times, I honestly don't see the range as nearly useful enough of a crop camera. The range lost at the wide angle is a far greater tradeoff than those gained at the long end.

The ability to go full frame pops up ever so often. But unless you're doing so in the next six months, it seems like a bogus argument meant to justify getting the red ring... At least to me, the 17-55 is far superior to the 24-70 on a crop sensor. Better range, IS, not as heavy, cheaper.

I think Jonas has a point, but to me, the L factor wasn't the main issue to take th 17-40 into account, it has many other things going for it: weather sealing, flare resistance, size, does not expand when focusing etc... It's just that the 17-55 has more and better advantages.

Will do

J

You just cannot buy a better lens than the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS in it's range. It is simply the best there is, and all of the tears shed by FF fans who still don't own FF cameras several years after bringing up the issue are wasted on me. Even if you do end up with a FF camera, you will likely not dump your APS-C camera. I own several FF cameras. All are film cameras, but they are FF. Two are FD mount cameras, and I keep a nice selection of FD lenses to suit them. The other is an EOS 1V HS, which shares my EF lenses, but not my EF-S lenses.

That's OK, as the APS-C cameras are where it's at in terms of technology, and I plan to keep at least one until the cows come home. Currently, I own two. A 30D, and a 40D. I used to own a 5D, but had issues with it, and sold it. Long live APS-C, and bring me ever more L quality EF-S lenses like the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I can't wait....

--
Voyager

I think both are fantastic lenses, you can't really go wrong with either. For FF compatability, I recently ordered the 17-40, and am very pleased. Here's my first pic from the lens:-

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vijpics/2097600618/

Here's a shot from the 17-55 IS which I rented on a trip to Alaska.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vijpics/527136059/

Hope it helps

After even more consideration, comparing images and reading reviews and so on, I've decided on the cheaper alternative: Tamron 17-50. The reason is quite simple. The price difference between the two lenses here in Sweden is about $900... Now, lenses ARE expensive in the EU, but this difference is simply ridiculous. And it also means I can get a second lens I will need, the Tokina 10-17 FE (for underwater use).

Now, the question, are there ANY concerns regarding this lens? AF motor sound can't justify $900, and I doubt IS can. Quality concerns... Well, reading some more tests it seems the Tamron quality is better than it feels, and I guess if I'm unlucky enough to get a lens with FF problems or similar it will simply be a case of swapping it.

Looking at lots of images, it seems to have very nice colour and contrast, and IQ wise it seems neck to neck with the Canon.

ktwse said:

After even more consideration, comparing images and reading reviews
and so on, I've decided on the cheaper alternative: Tamron 17-50. The
reason is quite simple. The price difference between the two lenses
here in Sweden is about $900... Now, lenses ARE expensive in the EU,
but this difference is simply ridiculous. And it also means I can get
a second lens I will need, the Tokina 10-17 FE (for underwater use).

Now, the question, are there ANY concerns regarding this lens? AF
motor sound can't justify $900, and I doubt IS can. Quality
concerns... Well, reading some more tests it seems the Tamron quality
is better than it feels, and I guess if I'm unlucky enough to get a
lens with FF problems or similar it will simply be a case of swapping
it.

Looking at lots of images, it seems to have very nice colour and
contrast, and IQ wise it seems neck to neck with the Canon.

Click to expand...

This is just my experience but I have owned two copies of the Tamron 17-50. The first copy front focused terribly. I then exchanged it for a 2nd copy and it was perfect. Very nice IQ and very sharp. Really just as sharp as my 17-55. Actually I wish I would have kept it because it is a very nice size.

Good luck.

Pat

Like I wrote, most of the sample images I've looked at and all tests suggest it is a very good lens in its own right and an absolute bargain at the price. IQ wise it seems to be equal to the 17-55, only really lacking IS and having a noisier AF.

Seems like lots of people then try desperately to find reasons that help justify spending $600 or more extra on the Canon lens, just because that's more desirable.

How useful is FTM really? I find I don't really have to use it for my 10-22, but have used it occasionally on my 60 macro. Is that a feature I will miss with the Tamron?