17-50 vs 17-40

ThatCanonGuy

OK, another lens question from that Canon guy Where do we put these, here or in Cameras?

Here's my latest thought: The Tamron 17-50 is half the price of the Canon 17-40 I was saving up for. It's 2.8, vs the f4 of the Canon. I know the Canon has much better IQ. I know the 17-50 is not a FF lens, so it'll have a little vignetting. I can handle that, and fix it in PP. Don't mind. So is it worth it to give up another $300 PLUS a whole f-stop to get faster AF and better IQ? Tamron owners, is the AF slow on the 17-50? Do you like the IQ, especially compared to an L? Will I be disappointed with the IQ compared to my 70-200?

That would be sweet if I could get this, as that would free up some cash for a 50/85/100 prime and my SmugMug subscription:D

philtherower

Here's a pic with this lens off my 30D when I still had the combo (Cropped a little):

I'd say go with the 2.8 because of the money. You can do what I did and buy one for 300 and possibly even sell it more than what you bought it for . Out of the playing around I've done with the L's (is it even possible to play around with L's?), I'd say the quality is on par to the 70-200. It's AF is fast enough, especially on your Mark II. I'd say you'd be happy with this lens if your okay with the vignetting as you said.

ziggy53

I don't mind lens questions in either the Camera or the Accessories forum.

The Tamron will have a fair amount of vignetting on a 1D MKII, especially if you want a 4 x 6 aspect ratio. A 4 x 5 aspect ratio or square ratio image gives more usable pixels. Expect around 4.5MPix to be usable at the widest focal length. The situation improves as you zoom in. The lens has very good center sharpness wide open but no, it's not up to "L" sharpness or contrast and many users see a fairly typical Tamron "warmth" from that lens. There is also some sample variation which explains why some people love the lens (most do) but some people have problems. An extremely popular and fairly light standard zoom for crop 1.6x and crop 1.5x APS-C camera bodies. I cannot recommend that lens for crop 1.3x/APS-H cameras and anything serious.

The EF 17-40mm, f4L USM actually does really, really well on the 1D MKII and I truly like that combination. The contrast of that lens seems to help offset the slower aperture and the lens is very quick to focus for me even under church lighting.

ThatCanonGuy

ziggy53 wrote: »

I cannot recommend that lens for crop 1.3x/APS-H cameras and anything serious.

Because of the sharpness and contrast/color issues? I can deal with not-as-good colors/contrast, I can fix it in PP somewhat. Phil the rower seems to like the AF speed.

ziggy53

The Tamron "warmth" is not a problem, just a difference. You previously asked, "... compared to an L?" and I was pointing out a difference.

The primary reason I cannot recommend the Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF) for your 1D MKII and "anything serious":

The lens is not designed to cover the imager and the resulting vignetting "will" force considerable cropping in post. This really is pretty significant for "anything serious". For just knocking around you might find it perfectly acceptable.

The Tamron really is a very nice APS-C standard zoom and I think you'll find that I've recommended it countless times for people with those cameras.

For the 1D MKII you might look at a Tamron 28-75mm, f2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical (IF) instead. The properties are similar to the Tamron 17-50mm except that it is designed to cover your imager and has a different zoom range.

ThatCanonGuy

Yeah, I would get that 28-75, but I know that 28mm on my 1.3x crop would not be wide enough. I could get a 20mm 2.8 prime after the 28-75, but that takes away the extra 3mm and the zoom.

You don't think the vignetting can be corrected with the slider in ACR?

ziggy53

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

... You don't think the vignetting can be corrected with the slider in ACR?

The vignetting is severe enough that the resulting need for cropping will become troublesome for any "serious" projects. If you just need a couple of snap shots it's not as big an issue, but if you are looking for image quality or any volume it's just not worthwhile IMO.

Feel free to try it. Borrow Lenses has the lens in stock and pretty cheap to try:

http://www.borrowlenses.com/category/canon_standard

Whatever you do won't be wrong; this is not an absolute situation. The 17-40L is just a far more satisfying solution for wide-angle on the 1D MKII.

ThatCanonGuy

I used to own a Tamron 55-200 Di II, which was for crop bodies. I think the vignetting at 55 will be close to what I'll see at 50mm on the 17-50. Here's a sample.

ThatCanonGuy

And here's a real world example--just testing, I know it's horrible:D:

philtherower

I think the tammy AF speed is good, it's just that it's noisy which makes it seem slower. If AF speed is really important to you, I'd go with the L for sure

ThatCanonGuy

AF speed is important, but as long as the Tammy is fast, I think I'm good. I won't be doing super-fast action like I do with the 70-200L. I know the L has faster AF, but is that plus no vignetting and (slightly) better IQ worth the extra $300 and the lost stop?

philtherower

IMO, I don't think 300 bucks is worth it especially if you're planning to put some money into primes, which will almost always have better IQ than zooms and are a few stops faster