Best Deal for wide Angle: Tamron cs. Canon

Justiceiro

Hey Guys,

My upstairs neighbor is buying a camera outfit for his wife- she's got the photo bug, but he's not that knowledgable about cameras, so he is basically asking me to recomend a Canon setup. Total spending can be up to $1500.

After some soul searching, we decided on the 350d (XT) with a hot wide angle lens vs. the 20d. I myself will soon be in the market for a quality wide angle lens. We are envisioning one cheap prime (the 50mm) a used medium tele (35-135); what we are stuck on is the wide angle.

I am looking at the following lenses:

Canon 17-40L $650
Tamron 17-35 $450

I know people generally love the 17-40L, and that L lenses are super sweet. Plus they have that red band around them, always nice.

But reading the description for the Tamron, I am intrigued. It also has low dispersion glass. Is this glass the same quality as Canon's? I also like the f2.8 better than the f4 on the canon lens. Also, if we save $200 on the wide zoom, maybe we can upgrade the prime to a 28mm or something.


So what's the deal? I have no experience with either, but would love to hear suggestions. Also, if tyhere is a better lens in this zoom range that is $600 or less, let me know.

ziggy53

Justiceiro,

I have a Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8, that is extremely good at f4 and not too bad even wide open. I regard it as a much better value than the Canon 17-40mm, f4, and much better range than the Tamron you mention.

It makes a fantastic "events" lens, a passable portrait lens and a sweet landscape lens. It is very similar to a 28-80mm in full-frame terms.

I am not a Sigma zealot. I tried 2 copies of the 70-200mm, f2.8, and wound up getting the Canon "L" version instead, The Sigmas just didn't satisfy my needs, although it may have been a QC problem as others get great results from the Sigma. The 18-50mm you will have to pry from my cold, dead hands.

Best,

ziggy53

limbik

That's exactly what I'm debating right now. I picked up a 17-40L ad had a short time to test it, and while I love the build, usm, and fantastic quality, I just don't know if f4 is going to do it for me.

My next consideration is the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 that will be available very soon. I'm holding off until I hear reviews, because I've heard iffy things about the 17-35mm on the long end. The only thing I would really miss is the 77mm filter (because I already have a couple nice ones) and the usm, because I had the 28-75mm and it was a very high quality lens, but focus was noisy compared to the 17-40 which is near silent and amazingly fast.

I also tried a 70-200 Sigma ziggy, I was dissapointed as well when I compared it to the Canon version, but I think I'm just addicted to Canon bokeh... I'd go for the new 17-55 IS EFS if I could, but if Tamron can compete at 1/3 the cost I can't even consider it, especially since I could care less about the IS. Heck, I'll even skip the IS on the 70-200 so I can get a nice Canon lens cheaper, even though it would actually be useful at that length.

cmason

Recommend you spend some time looking around here. Some of the best side by side reviews. While the Tamron you mention isnt there, there is much on the Sigma model.

(fstopjojo changed his site to 'lightrules")

firedancing4life

I got a tamron 17-35....I read tons of reviews...mostly on www.fredmiranda.com

I haven't taken anything recent with it...but here is a pic when I first got my Rebel XT.

Red Bull

I haven't tried the Tamron, but I absolutely love my 17-40. f4 is fine for me, I never really do much low light shooting. I'd take f4 and the better build quality and better focusing than a 2.8 with not as good build quality and noisy focusing.

ktomkins

My vote
I just bought a Canon 5d to supplement my 300d. I currently own 3 Tamron lenses including the 17-35mm. It is an excellent lens. I also purchased 3 L lenses as well. I started out with a 28-300L IS and sent it back because it it was too soft in the 28-100 range and also had a lot of CA. In the 28-100 range, I would defy you to tell the difference between a picture I took with that $2200 lens and my $400 28-300 Tamron. The Canon was slightly sharper in the 100-300 range, but still had quite a bit MORE CA than the Tamron did. I also tried a Canon 24-105L IS. It had lots of barrel distortion and also had lots of CA. That went back too. I replaced that with a Tamron 28-75 F2.8. It is razor sharp though the entire zoom range and has NO CA. I hold Tamron lenses in high regard. Save some bucks and buy the Tamron unless you have friends who are easily impressed with a little red stripe on your lens.

Justiceiro wrote:

Hey Guys,

My upstairs neighbor is buying a camera outfit for his wife- she's got the photo bug, but he's not that knowledgable about cameras, so he is basically asking me to recomend a Canon setup. Total spending can be up to $1500.

After some soul searching, we decided on the 350d (XT) with a hot wide angle lens vs. the 20d. I myself will soon be in the market for a quality wide angle lens. We are envisioning one cheap prime (the 50mm) a used medium tele (35-135); what we are stuck on is the wide angle.

I am looking at the following lenses:

Canon 17-40L $650
Tamron 17-35 $450

I know people generally love the 17-40L, and that L lenses are super sweet. Plus they have that red band around them, always nice.

But reading the description for the Tamron, I am intrigued. It also has low dispersion glass. Is this glass the same quality as Canon's? I also like the f2.8 better than the f4 on the canon lens. Also, if we save $200 on the wide zoom, maybe we can upgrade the prime to a 28mm or something.


So what's the deal? I have no experience with either, but would love to hear suggestions. Also, if tyhere is a better lens in this zoom range that is $600 or less, let me know.