Sharp ?? : Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 vs Canon EF 17-40 F4L

[mhafizahmad]

To Moderator, pls delete this topic if you found the same topic already exist.

Pls click below for sharpness comparison between both lenses:

Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 vs Canon EF 17-40 F4L Sharpness Comparison (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=2&Lens=400&Camera=396&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396)

On my eyes, I found that Tamron is sharper than Canon.

Am I right or wrong?

Pls comment, thanks.

[galee]

I am damn sure that the tamron 17-50 is sharper... :P

[ShaolinTiger]

Yeah Tamron is much sharper, it's razor at f/4.

It pretty much equally as sharp as the Nikkor and Canon f/2.8 equivalents, main difference is the build quality.

[cucubud]

From that site, when you compare the Canon EFS 18~55mm kit lens to the Canon 17~40mm F4L lens, look like the kit lens is sharper than the L lens at F4.:D

[mhafizahmad]

ahahaha! I also do like that... hahaha!! very surprising!


From that site, when you compare the Canon EFS 18~55mm kit lens to the Canon 17~40mm F4L lens, look like the kit lens is sharper than the L lens at F4.:D

[g88]

To Moderator, pls delete this topic if you found the same topic already exist.

Pls click below for sharpness comparison between both lenses:

Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 vs Canon EF 17-40 F4L Sharpness Comparison (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=2&Lens=400&Camera=396&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396)

On my eyes, I found that Tamron is sharper than Canon.

Am I right or wrong?

Pls comment, thanks.

how big is the price different ?

[mhafizahmad]

Tamron RM1500 local warranty, Canon RM2500 local warranty. This is average price. Different about RM1000


how big is the price different ?

[g88]

Tamron RM1500 local warranty, Canon RM2500 local warranty. This is average price. Different about RM1000

wow...both consider wide angle lens right ? Hmm...depend on budget :cool:

[mhafizahmad]

Yup, consider as wide angle. If u prefer good looking or reputation and weather sealed lens, silent focusing, go for canon... but if u just depend on budget, go for Tamron. Its good for your health..

cheers!

wow...both consider wide angle lens right ? Hmm...depend on budget :cool:

[galee]

If I have a Canon body, I will go for the Tamron... Cheap[price], Big[aparture] and Useful[17-50mm]. :D

[Jenz]

You guys sure or not!
I am on the verge of getting a 17-40L!!
My top priority is IQ...and that includes sharpness...if the 17-50 2.8 beats the begineer's L lens in terms of sharpness/contrast, no point me wasting another rm1K just for being silent and wethersealed!

[donnyyeo]

The Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 has ...

+ higher center sharpness (starting from f/2.8 onwards)
+ higher contrast
+ lower CA
+ more flare resistant
+ higher saturation
- no IS
- no USM
- slower, less accurate and less consistent AF (especially in low light)
- high field curvature (at f/2.8 @ 17mm)

than my Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.

Btw, I am selling off my Tamron...please check the buy/sell section.

Reviews, which I find accurate are:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28_nikon/index.htm
about the field curvature

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/23
about the blur index

[pixelight]

NOOOO! CANON ! GET THE CANON! it works great on my 350D! and. of course. the anticlockwise zooming by canon is so much better than tamron *since you're a canon anyway, not a nikon*

focusing, fast, silent! i heard the 17-50 sounds like the 50mm 1.8 *correct me if i'm wrong :?*

oh and. it's an L lens. can be used on film and full frame, unlike the tammy.

it will last for ages before you upgrade. in fact, you don't have to upgrade unless you have $$ for the 16-35 f2.8 :D
you won't regret getting the 17-40. if you require bokeh, use the 50mm 1.8
landscape shots don't need f2.8 anyway.

You guys sure or not!
I am on the verge of getting a 17-40L!!
My top priority is IQ...and that includes sharpness...if the 17-50 2.8 beats the begineer's L lens in terms of sharpness/contrast, no point me wasting another rm1K just for being silent and wethersealed!

follow your heart! :D

[o_buy]

For me i prefer smaller and lighter lens !i think SP17-50mm is the lightest lens of(17-50f2.8) for now ....so far i don't have any complain since i bought it...:cool:

[jayhan]

just recently acquired the tamron and have used it once for a wedding job. i initially wanted to get the 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM instead, but somehow mr. ringgit just doesnt wanna budge from my wallet :P

anyway, i find the tamron to give out images which are slightly more saturated. its been sharpy sharpy and wut i dun like about it is the reverse zooming ring and also the AF motor noise.

[yannick]

hm..although i dont have both tamron or canon, i have test jay's tamron 17-50 and i feel that the zoom ring is very slow and AF focusing and very slow compare to canon. i think i still prefer canon USM compare to tamron. just my opinion. hehe

[nairud]

i'm thinking of getting either one of these 2 lenses. f2.8 does really come good when we're in low light.. sigh... choices...which one

[jayhan]

nairud bro. f2.8 is meaningless in low light. learning how to control flash is priceless in such cases and the f2.8 would be then easily forgotten

[mhafizahmad]

Totally agreed with jayhan. I have this Tamron 17-50 , but I only used f2.8 15% of the time only. And yes, my lowlight is not f2.8 actually, its F4 or F4.5, used my flash to mix with ambient.

If u want really lowlight without flash, maybe can try any lens of f1.8 or bigger, that's superb!


nairud bro. f2.8 is meaningless in low light. learning how to control flash is priceless in such cases and the f2.8 would be then easily forgotten

[nairud]

lol.. attaching flash onto the body and being a strobist makes quite a difference. i've yet to get my triggers yet.

like you said, jay, wallet doesnt wanna cough up more moolah is another factor

[o_buy]

Aikss...not every way can use flash right ?? in certain condition we still need the f2.8 to cover the low light problem .

[ShaolinTiger]

Aikss...not every way can use flash right ?? in certain condition we still need the f2.8 to cover the low light problem .

That's not the main point, the main point is no lens is sharp wide open, so if you have a f/2.8 lens it's pretty sharp by f/3.2 or f/3.5 and very sharp by f/4.

Where as with a f/4 lens it's not really sharp until f/5.6 or higher even.

[pixelight]

yeap, very true! i like the 17-40 at f5.6 ! even better at f8

[nairud]

if you have F4L and to achive tack sharp at f5.6, might as well get tammy f2.8 and get tack sharp at f4 rite? no?

[ShaolinTiger]

if you have F4L and to achive tack sharp at f5.6, might as well get tammy f2.8 and get tack sharp at f4 rite? no?

That's what I think :D

That's why I own the Tamron..

[mhafizahmad]

:P:P:P:P:P:D:D:D:D:D


That's what I think :D

That's why I own the Tamron..

[nairud]

lol... i guess this sum up on which lens i'll settle for. lol

[dannylak23]

guys if compare with sigma 18-50m?

[o_buy]

guys if compare with sigma 18-50m?

I don't think Sigma 18-50mm is a good choice than Tamron..price and quality-Tamron WIN

[bobtahar]

I don't think Sigma 18-50mm is a good choice than Tamron..price and quality-Tamron WIN

Latest issue of DCM gave a very good rating for the sigma 18-50mm... much-much more better than the Tamron.:?

[o_buy]

Latest issue of DCM gave a very good rating for the sigma 18-50mm... much-much more better than the Tamron.:?

but the price .....;)differ few [RM100]s...picture quality still the same if u know how to control it..
sometime we can't depend on magazine rating..noisy ,body design ,builds quality also will deduce the rating..
sharp, useful and cheapest is the best choice for me :D

[d3vilsim]

tested the sigma 18-50..extremely heavy for me compare to kit lens 17-85 no need mention about tamron 17-50 lio . . =)

[aaronfoo]

but the price .....;)differ few [RM100]s...picture quality still the same if u know how to control it..
sometime we can't depend on magazine rating..noisy ,body design ,builds quality also will deduce the rating..
sharp, useful and cheapest is the best choice for me :D

Personally.. I look at reviews as 2 cents.

The real test comes when you put on the lens and snap some photos and review it yourself.

Looking at the magazine review of all those lenses and result photos, I'll vote for Tamron 17-50mm

[shaun]

actually you all comparing the tamron 17-50 to the canon 17-40L.. what about the tamron 28-75??.. is it as sharp as the canon 24-70L/??

[nitehawk]

actually you all comparing the tamron 17-50 to the canon 17-40L.. what about the tamron 28-75??.. is it as sharp as the canon 24-70L/??

Let's not complicate this thread... comparison between Tamron 17-50 and Canon 17-40L. If you wish to discuss on Tamron 28-75 and Canon 24-70L, I suggest you start a new thread.

[d3vilsim]

Just got my tamron 17-50 last night .. haven't really test it yet. =)

[Graven]

For average Joe, Tamron is good enough! L lens are way too expensive for us, unless u shot photo for $.

And please don't forget the fact that these lens can break, drop, stolen in near future.

I find Tamy is not always sharp or look soft when taking photo at F2.8. Maybe the DOF is too narrow. I'm still learning to master this lens now, maybe soft focus is due to my shooting technique. :?

[ShaolinTiger]

For average Joe, Tamron is good enough! L lens are way too expensive for us, unless u shot photo for $.

And please don't forget the fact that these lens can break, drop, stolen in near future.

I find Tamy is not always sharp or look soft when taking photo at F2.8. Maybe the DOF is too narrow. I'm still learning to master this lens now, maybe soft focus is due to my shooting technique. :?

All lens are soft wide open, that's just a fact.

At f/4 the Tamron is blazingly sharp.

[gr2k]

@ST
except those few famous fixed-focal ones..those can be center sharp wide open :P sharpness is important, though not everything (you don't need an image to look as sharp as a cartoon drawing)

@Graven
since we're talking 'L' lenses..i've read from several places including the "Canon's Lens Work III Book" and all i can solidly derive is that the lens is fully loaded: USM/IS/weatherpoofing/rugged/fixed aperture etc..and they never mention anything credible about how it has better optical quality.

in fact i e-mailed 3 photographers before asking how different is the Canon L lens, two were kind enough to reply: "...it's fully loaded. That's pretty much it, optically it doesn't get much better than the lesser lenses."

so honestly think think, real big difference? or marketing gimmick :) even the chaps from Nikon picked up that strategy and came up with the Nikkor N lenses..

@TS
here you're comparing an f/2.8 lens with an f/4 lens so it's not exactly relevant i think..if i'm not mistaken an f/2.8 lens design should be sharper at f/4 against a f/4 lens design...mechanicaly/optically speaking the extreme ends hardly (or never) have the best quality.

[rahmat]

i use 17-40 f4 L too.. not bad

www.flickr.com/bobrahmat

[Swift3230]

just get the 17-40 f4 L

no bluf u.....i extremely like the lens shaprness & the colours

no regret.....

i used to own tamron 17-50, tell u what. it gives me headache time during focusing on the objects, the focusing sound really annoying.

[tools4fools]

If you ever plan on getting a 5D MkII then the 17-40mm Canon makes more sense...
:cool:
*****

[goldfries]

i used to own tamron 17-50, tell u what. it gives me headache time during focusing on the objects, the focusing sound really annoying.

USM does wonders when AFing. :) silent and damn fast.

the Tamron's 17-50's advantage (to me) would only be the range (not much diff) and the wider aperture.

[georgelimsk]

i own tamron 17-50mm...work best with cropped camera...cheap...F2.8..sharper...

but it attracts fungus more easily...noisy...slower

if u plan for full frame next time..get 17-40mm...

[goldfries]

of course la work best with cropped sensor body, it doesn't work on FF in the first place. :D

[xavierchan]

lately, I am considering to switch to 17-40 f4L from Tamron 17-50... one of the reason, it is not as sharp as I am expecting even at f/4 or f/8... previously was on my 350D body... then i tried it on 30D, it seems sharper a little bit compare to when I used 350D...

Then recently I tested it again with 40D, well apparently, it seems the same. Not as sharp as I am expecting. I never really test 17-40 f4L before, but it seems like throughout this thread, most of the users prefer Tamron 17-50mm more than 17-40L... I wonder. *sweat*

The 17-40L really that bad compare to Tamron 17-50f/2.8?

[noruazumi]

The 17-40L really that bad compare to Tamron 17-50f/2.8?
I think the main factor that people choose Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 over Canon 17-40mm f/4L is the price. Wider aperture is only a minor factor. If you have the moolah, I'm pretty sure you will go for Canon.

Same goes to Nikon's case; Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8. Nikkor's price is ~3x more than Tamron. If Nikkor's price is almost the same as the Tamron, any day people will go for the Nikkor instead of the Tamron.

BTW, I think you got yourself a bad copy of the Tamron.

[xavierchan]

I think the main factor that people choose Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 over Canon 17-40mm f/4L is the price. Wider aperture is only a minor factor. If you have the moolah, I'm pretty sure you will go for Canon.

Same goes to Nikon's case; Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8. Nikkor's price is ~3x more than Tamron. If Nikkor's price is almost the same as the Tamron, any day people will go for the Nikkor instead of the Tamron.

BTW, I think you got yourself a bad copy of the Tamron.
perhaps I should get another Tammy to have a try? hmm...

[babyel]

i own tamron 17-50mm...work best with cropped camera...cheap...F2.8..sharper...

but it attracts fungus more easily...noisy...slower

if u plan for full frame next time..get 17-40mm...


no need FF ....just try ur tammy on the 50D body with DIGIC4...its as FAST as a L lens....even in low light.........but its still noisy laaa....

its a very good lens for wedding...
....the f2.8 bokeh....certainly will be better than the f4.
.....the 50mm for close up....is much much more useful than the 40mm


just my 2 kupang

[Psykit]

A lot of people are caught in the dilemma to choose between these two including me.

Considering performance in low light definitely the f/2.8 has the edge as compared to f/4 but I believe it won't be that much of a difference if you have a flash for use in events and weddings. What do you guys think?

I'm not that concerned on getting a lens which will be compatible on a FF or not, I just want to get it for my use now and worry about it later when one has the dough to go FF.

However, build quality concerns me. I like the idea 17-40mm zoom which will not extend the front elements, and coupled with a filter it is almost weather-proof. This will help in terms of durability of the lens whereas for the Tamron, I've heard that the rubber will fall off after some time of use and the front element will wobble.

I talked to a fellow EOS 30D user and he recommend me to stick with Canon lenses, one thing is not because of the USM (as i mentioned to him that the USM focuses faster), but the colour rendition of the Canon 17-40mm f/4L lens as compared to the Tamron.

What most concerns me is low light performance of f/2.8 vs. f/4. How significant it can be in you guy's opinion? Does USM really help as much when you're in a wide to standard focal length?

[Wutang Crane]

Considering performance in low light definitely the f/2.8 has the edge as compared to f/4 but I believe it won't be that much of a difference if you have a flash for use in events and weddings. What do you guys think?/QUOTE]

you can't use f2.8 all the time, especially not for group photos and angled head shots where you need both eyes to be in focus. In dim halls or churches, you'd still need a fast and accurate AF.

[QUOTE=Psykit;203623]However, build quality concerns me. I like the idea 17-40mm zoom which will not extend the front elements, and coupled with a filter it is almost weather-proof. This will help in terms of durability of the lens whereas for the Tamron, I've heard that the rubber will fall off after some time of use and the front element will wobble. Not fair to compare tamron 17-50 and canon 17-40 in terms of built quality, they are miles apart. but considering the price of tamron, it is very well-built.

What most concerns me is low light performance of f/2.8 vs. f/4. How significant it can be in you guy's opinion? Does USM really help as much when you're in a wide to standard focal length?
USM will certainly help in any focal length. I think it should be a must-have feature on every lens that you plan to use for serious work. The f/2.8 vs. f/4 debate will never end because it's so much related to your style and technique, and what sort of photography you do. The technology has shifted towards high ISO performance and Image Stabilization. Shouldn't we stop mulling over just 1-stop of light, then?

[soloman]

[QUOTE=Psykit;203623]

Considering performance in low light definitely the f/2.8 has the edge as compared to f/4 but I believe it won't be that much of a difference if you have a flash for use in events and weddings. What do you guys think?/QUOTE]

you can't use f2.8 all the time, especially not for group photos and angled head shots where you need both eyes to be in focus. In dim halls or churches, you'd still need a fast and accurate AF.

Not fair to compare tamron 17-50 and canon 17-40 in terms of built quality, they are miles apart. but considering the price of tamron, it is very well-built.


USM will certainly help in any focal length. I think it should be a must-have feature on every lens that you plan to use for serious work. The f/2.8 vs. f/4 debate will never end because it's so much related to your style and technique, and what sort of photography you do. The technology has shifted towards high ISO performance and Image Stabilization. Shouldn't we stop mulling over just 1-stop of light, then?

heheheh.. tulisan merah.... :D