A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Lenses > Canon 17-40 L or Tamron 17-50...

Featured Equipment Deals

Top Tips From Three [Framed] Award Winners Read More

Top Tips From Three [Framed] Award Winners

Get inspired by these incredible female photographers and recipients of the [Framed] Award.

Latest Equipment Articles

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs Read More

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs

Photo packs have come a long way in the past decade, especially those that are targeted toward outdoor and adventure photographers. Alaska-based adventure photographer Dan Bailey takes a closer look...

Latest Learning Articles

5 Tips for Combating Red-Eye Read More

5 Tips for Combating Red-Eye

Red-eye doesn't have to ruin your photos. Learn 5 simple tricks to avoid and eliminate this undesirable photographic effect.


Canon 17-40 L or Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens

GREGORY MCLEMOR , Dec 22, 2010; 02:06 p.m.

Hello
My name is Greg and I am thinking about buying the Tamron 17-50 vc 2.8 lens or the Canon 17-40 F4 L lens for my 50d. I am going to use it for landscape mainly. I have a 50d and hope to eventually go to a Mark II next year. Can anyone recommend which one is better for about $ 700. I will be printing 16 by 20.
Thanks a lot and happy holidays

Responses


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Mike Hitchen , Dec 22, 2010; 04:38 p.m.

Reviews do not seem to show significant difference betwen the two. The Canon has the better build, the Tamron the additional reach.
My preference wouldbe for the Tamron. Although I think either would do you well, the additional 10mm range of the Tamron would make it far more versatile. I have the Canon 17-55 and bought it because although the 17-40 was excellent I found myself wanting a little more from a lens I hoped to have on my camera around town.

You say you want to move to a 'Mark II'. Do you mean a 5DMkII? The Tamron will not fit on 35mm bodies and the 17-40 would be yor better bet. Normally I would say buy lenses for the camera you have now, not for one you might get because you may find yourself frustrated by limitations (of whatever sort) in the meantime. So unless getting the 5D is a definite probability go for the Tamron.

Just to confuse matters, the new Sigma 17-70 is getting very good reviews.

Amlan Ray , Dec 22, 2010; 05:21 p.m.

When you move to Mark II do you still intend to keep the 50D or get rid of it ? If you still plan to continue using 50D, the Tamron is a very good choice for the f/2.8 and VC. But in the future if plan to shoot only with the Mark II, I don't see any point in investing in the Tamron. I have the non-VC version, it a very good lens and I have printed images up to 20*30, using it on a 30D without any issue.

Brett W. , Dec 22, 2010; 05:33 p.m.

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 will be significantly sharper on the 50D but if you want a lens that works on both bodies the 17-40 (or another lens) could be the better option
see -
(link)

Harry Joseph , Dec 22, 2010; 09:07 p.m.

Tough choice ! I read great reviews on both lenses. A few years ago the 17-40mm was 'The' lens to have have in your camera bag. The Tamron 17-50mm is also highly regarded, so much that David Crockett from shootsmarter.com rated it as 'Pro' level lens, right up there with the Canon 24-70mm. I thought about both lenses when I wanted a light walk-around/travel lens for my Canon 7D. So far, I have not made up my mind, so I'm stuck with the brick(24-70mm) for now.

Richard Martin , Dec 23, 2010; 01:28 p.m.

My Tamron has been with me for nearly 4 years now, first on my XTi, then my 40D, now my 50D. It is a great lens, very sharp, nice color and contrast, 2.8, light weight, and nice focal range......what more could you ask for? I highly recommend this lens!

Jerry Cipriano , Dec 23, 2010; 02:47 p.m.

Greg - I have both the Tamron 17-50 non-VC and the Canon 17-40L. I bought the Tamron for my wife's Rebel and the Canon for myself because I'm planning on moving from the cropped lens to full-frame. Both have nearly equal IQ. I have evolved to preferring the Tamron, because of it's smaller size, longer reach, and 2.8 aperture. However, the 2.8 is not very relevant for you if you shoot mainly landscapes, and the determining factor is whether you will be definitely moving to a 5D in the near future. If so, the 17-40L should be your choice.
Jerry C.

M. P. , Dec 24, 2010; 05:12 a.m.

There both good lenses. I bought my canon 17-40 because I knew I was upgrading to 5d2. However, I also have and use often the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I would make sure whatever you get wick work well on full frame.

Mark Hall , Dec 25, 2010; 07:05 p.m.

The "Tamron will be significantly sharper." Sorry, but I don't buy that statement. The EF 17-40mm f/4L lens is razor sharp - I imagine that you would need to shoot with a prime lens to get better results and even then I expect that improvements would be in color and contrast, not sharpness. The 17-40mm stands up very well to the much more expensive 16-35mm f/2.8L.
If you plan on staying with the Canon line - eventually moving to a full frame (which I understand is Canon's long term strategy to get us all sucked in), then invest in the 17-40mm and be happy. It is an outstanding lens. Good luck!

Mark Hall , Dec 25, 2010; 07:05 p.m.

The "Tamron will be significantly sharper." Sorry, but I don't buy that statement. The EF 17-40mm f/4L lens is razor sharp - I imagine that you would need to shoot with a prime lens to get better results and even then I expect that improvements would be in color and contrast, not sharpness. The 17-40mm stands up very well to the much more expensive 16-35mm f/2.8L.
If you plan on staying with the Canon line - eventually moving to a full frame (which I understand is Canon's long term strategy to get us all sucked in), then invest in the 17-40mm and be happy. It is an outstanding lens. Good luck!


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses