2 lens choices, need advice

starky987

I've previously asked for advice on different lenses to purchase, taking those recommendations into consideration, I have decided on two different choices. I was hoping people might give their opinions as to which choice they like better.

1. Canon 17-40L & Canon70-300 IS

2.Tamron 17-50 & Canon 70-200L

Thanks!!

TaDa

I own the 70-300 IS USM and love it. When I was getting my 70-300, i asked the same question here, get it or the 70-200 f/4 since they are right around the same price. Everyone pretty much told me to get the 70-300. Firstly, the obvious, the 70-300 has a lot more reach. I actually end up shooting more in the 200-300 range than the 70-200 range. The IS is awesome. Though it can be a little slow, it's saved a ton of images for me. It also has some upgraded glass in it that are usually only found in L series glass.

Now, as for the wide lens, I do not own either the 17-40 nor the Tammy, but from all the reviews I have read, the 17-50 edges out the 17-40 in some tests as far as IQ. You also get an extra stop for low light situations. From the reviews, it sounds like Tamron's two best lenses are the 17-50 and 28-75.

gryphonslair99

starky987 wrote:

I've previously asked for advice on different lenses to purchase, taking those recommendations into consideration, I have decided on two different choices. I was hoping people might give their opinions as to which choice they like better.

1. Canon 17-40L & Canon70-300 IS

2.Tamron 17-50 & Canon 70-200L

Thanks!!

#2 is the way I went when I switched to Digital. I tested the Tamron and the Canon 17-40 and the Tamron was a better all around lens. The build is not up to the Canon L build but the optics sure were on the two that I tested.

I have since repalced the Tamron with a pair of Canon's (16-35 f2.8 & 24-70 f2.8) I have kept the Tamron and still use it on occasion. It's just that good. I have to say that my 70-200 choice was the f2.8 as well. More expensive than the f4 versions but the speed is worth it to me.

swintonphoto

I'd go for the 70-200 zoom. Both the Canon and Tamron standard zooms are great lenses with great reviews. Won't go wrong with either one.

Photoskipper

starky987 wrote:

I've previously asked for advice on different lenses to purchase, taking those recommendations into consideration, I have decided on two different choices. I was hoping people might give their opinions as to which choice they like better.

1. Canon 17-40L & Canon70-300 IS

2.Tamron 17-50 & Canon 70-200L

Thanks!!

I own 24 -105 F4L and 70-200 F2.8 L IS, planning to get the 17-40 L F4 next month to complete the coverage from wide (17 mm) to tele (200 mm and 400 mm with 2X TC) for the 5D. Collected the Tamron 11-18 for landscape and firework, Bigma 18-200 as walk about lens and the old 70 -300 (from the old EOS 5) for the Rebel.

Your plan shows there is a bit of gap either 40 -70 or 50 -70. (if crop sensor will be 64 to 112 o 80 -112 mm) where the common portrait range.

It is depends on what you plan to do and your current lens line up. It would be better to have some overlapping between 2 lens so that you don't need to change the lens so often in the field. The new EFS 17-85 IS is pretty cool. It can replace the 17 -40 or 17 -50. Personally, I feel the chance of using focal lenght beyond 300 mm is not that often. So if you own the crop sensor and get a 200 L, it is already 320 mm, good enough for most of bird photo. Consider a 1.4X TC for the 70-200 L later to extend the coverage as a cheaper alternative. (then you may have 640 mm lens)

TaDa

I assume that you're asking about just the 70-200 f/4 non-IS. That's the lens that folks were telling me to get my 70-300 over. If you can afford the 2.8 IS or non, it's a no-brainer to get that one

starky987

Thanks for the input everyone. I am talking about the NON IS version of the L. No way I can afford the more expensive one. The only thing with the L is that there is no IS. Plus I've heard the 70-300 is almost as good as the L plus that one does have IS. Anyone care to share their thoughts on IS vs. no IS.

Also what is meant by crop sensor? I don't know if I own one, but since I don't know what one is I'd assume I don't.

Moogle Pepper

Your camera is the canon xti, correct? Then you have a 1.6x crop sensor. That is just saying that you have a 1.6x magnification compared to a a full frame 1x. So if you are using that 17-50 it would really be 27.2 - 80 instead.

IS is handy when hand holding a hefty lens like the 70-200, though not imperative to have. It is a handy tool.

TaDa

A crop sensor means that the camera has a smaller sensor than a full frame camera. Most cameras in the consumer price range are crops. You start getting into full frame cameras in the 5D and above. What this means is that when you are shooting on a crop camera, your body magnifies the image by 1.6 times. So if you are shooting a lens that is 50mm fixed for example, on a full frame camera, you would be shooting at 50mm. On a crop, you are shooting at 80mm (50 x 1.6). What this also means is that when you start getting into tele-photo lenses, the 70-300 that you're considering is actually shooting at 112mm - 480mm distances.

Now, for the IS, Image Stabilization is a technology where Canon has put mechanics into the lens to help compensate for your hand shaking while taking the picture. If you were to shoot an image in lower light, the light sensor in your camera would sense low light and compensate by keeping the shutter open for a longer period of time (unless of course you adjust this action manually). With the shutter open a longer period of time, this causes any shaking to get captured by the sensor and makes the resulting image fuzzy or blurry. Image Stabilization will help with this by compensating for your hand shaking and the resulting image should be sharp. It really comes in handy for when you cannot or will not be shooting on a tripod.

claudermilk

Of the two choices, I'd go with #2. I assume the 70-200 is the f4 non-IS. Any of those lenses will be excellent (I've used the three older variants with no duds), and the Tamron has gotten nothing but glowing reviews that I've seen.

My thoughts on IS is that it's a nice tool, but not critical. If the budget doesn't allow for it, don't sweat it. There are other ways to get a sharp image (better technique, find a solid base in a tripod, monopod, or even beanbag on a solid object). I borrowed & rented 70-200/2.8 IS lenses for a long while, then finally bought myself the non-IS version as budget did not allow for hte additional $500. I honestly don't miss the lack of IS, and I mainly use the lens where I'm pushing the envelope (f2.8, ISO 3200, barely enough shutter).

Tee Why

Not to muddy things up but I'm a big fan of speed and if under $1000 limit and thinking about two zooms to cover abut 17-200/300 range, I'd also recommend the Tamron 17-50 and a Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 II.
L lenses are nice and built nicer generally, but I think the 50-150mm would fit my needs better b/c it's faster.

zack75144

I own the 17-40mm f/4 and am satisfied with it.
Can't speak about the 70-300mm IS, but I did own the 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM and it was disappointing. Very soft and slow to focus.
HTH's

Wingin'It

Regarding your choice of zooms, I made the same choice between these two lens two weeks ago. I went with the 70-200 f/4 L. As mentioned before, on a 1.6 crop camera, the effective zoom goes up to 320 mm. The construction of the lens is solid, the front of the barrel does not rotate, it has full time manual (FTM) focus, and the IQ is better. How much better is purely subjective, but almost all reviews give it the nod. It was very tempting to go for the extra reach of the 70-300 IS, but not having FTM focus was annoying, as was the front of the lens rotating. This means an extra step fumbling around with the polarizer every time the focus changes. I checked the reviews on FM (Fred Miranda), and B&H, and both places rated the 70-200 f/4 L with higher overall satisfaction. I'm very happy with my choice.

starky987

Thanks very much. I believe I'm going to go with the 70-200L f/4 ( i think its f/4). The only decision left now is between the 17-50 tamron, the 17-40L, or the 17-85 canon. Any first hand experience with any of these would be great. As of now I'm leaning towards the 17-85 b/c of the range.

ziggy53

starky987 wrote:

Thanks very much. I believe I'm going to go with the 70-200L f/4 ( i think its f/4). The only decision left now is between the 17-50 tamron, the 17-40L, or the 17-85 canon. Any first hand experience with any of these would be great. As of now I'm leaning towards the 17-85 b/c of the range.

I have the Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L and it is a superb optic. I also have a Sigma 18-50mm, f/2.8 EX DC, which was the best choice at the time. If I had to do it over with current choices, the Tamron SP 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) would top the list for top value standard zoom on a Canon crop 1.6x camera.

I recently got the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS and it is also a superb and high quality optic, but it's not really a value lens by any means.

Cameron

ziggy53 wrote:

I have the Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L and it is a superb optic. I also have a Sigma 18-50mm, f/2.8 EX DC, which was the best choice at the time. If I had to do it over with current choices, the Tamron SP 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) would top the list for top value standard zoom on a Canon crop 1.6x camera.

I recently got the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS and it is also a superb and high quality optic, but it's not really a value lens by any means.

I agree with Ziggy's recommendations and those of others above. I've owned both the 70-300 and 70-200 f/4L lenses and prefer the 70-200 F/4 for the faster focus and build-quality. I also agree that the best value standard zoom is the Tamron 17-50mm. Optically is it excellent! I too have the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, but if I were looking for a less expensive quality zoom, I'd go for the Tamron. The 17-85 Canon lens is much slower (f/4-5.6 = 1-2 stops slower) and has a fair degree of distortion. The Canon 17-40 f/4L is also excellent, but you'll get a bit more zoom range out of the Tamron, and 1 more stop - no, it's not quite the build quality of the Canon 17-40, but still very good.