Canon 17-55 vs Tamron 17-50 vs Canon 17-40.

[charlesleong]

17-55. since budget is not an issue, get the best you can afford, which will in turn save you countless hours of worrying "what if i had gotten the ______ instead?"

not many of us earn a living from photography, it's just an enjoyable hobby. that should not prevent you from getting the best equipment to help you enjoy it more... finances permitting of course...

 

[evotin]

extactly in the same shoe... 40D body
Now thinking between Canon 17-55 and Tamron 17-50

IS does make a difference in low lit handheld shooting.
Price wise it is steep but considering the built and features it should worth the price... I hope
17-40 on 40D will have to compromise wide angle so I think 17-55 should be a better choice.

Summary:
No Budget: Canon 17-55 , 17-40
Budget: Tamron 17-50

Apart from the price theory, it will be good if owner of those lens could share their experience.

 

[defn]

I think one of the members here brought up a good point that when you get the 17-55, you don't need to have any "what if" thoughts since you're already getting the best damn ef-s lens.

 

[plastikcanvas]

IQ wise, I fee the non-L 17-55mm does not lose out to the L lens. But I'm wondering, why do you feel that it is not ideal to use an L lens for crop body?

the reason for me saying this was according to people whom i asked or people who commented on my thread before if i remembered correctly. it's like having a FF lens on a crop body, it defeats the purpose or because of limitations of a crop lens the wide angle of the lens is missed...wrong?

anyway what if all of us who wanted to get the 17-55 lens buy all at once...will they have GREAT GREAT discounts?!! haha... "Uncle, we want to buy 10 pieces of 17-55 lens"

 

[waderbreak]

lol yah the problem with the 17-40L is that it's slightly short on the tele end.. so dunno if it'll be slightly less versatile. but earlier on one of the guys had pictures of his balloon ride with the 17-40 and it was not bad at all. (plus, L lens come with free hood)

Is the stupid dust issue with the 17-55 a big problem?


Btw guys thanks for your threads pls share share share your experiences with the various lenses. should be supa helpful

 

[calebk]

IQ wise, I fee the non-L 17-55mm does not lose out to the L lens. But I'm wondering, why do you feel that it is not ideal to use an L lens for crop body?

Because you are picking a less suitable lens when a more suitable lens is already available to you. Think about it. The 17-40 may be a L lens, but picking it means losing a stop of light (that's half the shutter speed you'll get with the 17-55 f/2.8) and it means you lose out IS.

Since the 17-55 holds its resale value so well, why not just get a 17-55 and be done with it. When you move up to another format, you can sell it and move up. No need to worry so much about future proofing and cripple your lens choices where you stand at the moment.

 

[ahbian]

Because you are picking a less suitable lens when a more suitable lens is already available to you. Think about it. The 17-40 may be a L lens, but picking it means losing a stop of light (that's half the shutter speed you'll get with the 17-55 f/2.8) and it means you lose out IS.

Since the 17-55 holds its resale value so well, why not just get a 17-55 and be done with it. When you move up to another format, you can sell it and move up. No need to worry so much about future proofing and cripple your lens choices where you stand at the moment.

Yup. I agree with you here on the comparison between the 17-55mm and the 17-40mmL. I myself would have chosen the 17-55mm.

I raised the question because plastikcanvas brought up a point in #19 which I interpreted as L lenses are generically not ideal for a crop body, and I was wondering why so.

 

[Azrielsc]

I was in the same dilemma choosing the 17-55 or the 17-40 and in the end, I chose the 17-55 to pair it with my 40D. Never regretted as the lens is awesome in lowlight and the IS really helps too!

 

[charlesleong]

the L zooms incorporating the 17-24 range are the 16-35 and 17-40.

Unless you're willing to shell out $$$ for the 16-35 (and lose the 35-55 range and IS), that leaves the 17-40. Although it's cheaper than the 17-55, you lose the IS, the f2.8 aperture and the 40-55 range.

the 17-55 is still THE kickass general-purpose lens for the APS-C format.

 

[plastikcanvas]

anyone have comments on this?

Quoted by sayjaibow

Like others have said if you have the money to burn then yes get the Canon. The IS will definitely help in low light handheld situations. More expensive doesn't always necessarily always better quality though and it depends on the copy of lens you get. Take a look at this comparison shots between the two lenses. In this comparison the Tamron looks clearly better.

Crop Comparison Tamron Vs Canon

 

[dinomax]

i'm also thinkking of getting the canon 17-55. on the other hand also thinking of the 16-35L.

i need the F2.8 cos sometimes i shoot both indoor n outdoor while i'm oversea. Dun like to keep changing lens or turnup the ISO and I don't bring tripod overseas.

Am using a 30D body, and lets not talk abt the prices or budget. Which is more sensible to get?

 

[charlesleong]

17-55. why hamper yourself with a shorter zoom range and no IS?

 

[dinomax]

17-55. why hamper yourself with a shorter zoom range and no IS?

haha, i already have a lens in mind le, jus making sure its a right choice. lol...... i went to MS yesterday, and they say no stock, alot of ppl are looking for this lens.

 

[pplneedthelord]

You seriously should just go for the 17-55...

 

[plastikcanvas]

Anyone bought the Tamron lens recently?

Did the price increase? ...saw someone bought at 535 but now 600 plus..

or was the post posted when policeman wore shorts?

 

[foost]

I own the 17-55 and have done some comparisons with a friend's 16-35L.

Both are equally sharp. However, the colours and saturation are distinctly better on the the latter lens. That said, range is an issue with the 16-35 but the build and image quality is far superior - I would say the colours on my 17-55 look flat in comparison.

 

[ThunderBolt]

;p I have owned and used the 17-40. But i personally find the 17-55 sharp. which i use most of the time:thumbsup:

 

[Rubber_Duck]

bro....
I also facing the same problem too..
dont know wich lens to buy next also
17-55mm or 16-35mm :dunno:

 

[waderbreak]

guys,

what about 17-55 f2.8 IScompared to 24-105 f4 IS? Thinking of getting the 17-55 by this week, but i see some of the 2nd hand 24-105 priced quite decently. dunno if a noob like me should start off with that or still stick with the 17-55. Price wise they're about the same (2nd hand)

 

[Shen siung]

guys,

what about 17-55 f2.8 IScompared to 24-105 f4 IS? Thinking of getting the 17-55 by this week, but i see some of the 2nd hand 24-105 priced quite decently. dunno if a noob like me should start off with that or still stick with the 17-55. Price wise they're about the same (2nd hand)

Well IMO, it depends on what you want, what body you use
If you use a full frame, 24-105 is a good coverage, from decent wide to medium tele.
But on crop (like 450D, 40D, 50D...) it is not wide enough.

17-55 is a wide enough for crop.

But if you have enough $$$, you can get 24-105, then add another 10-22 as a wide angle. Mind you efs 10-22 only suitable for crop bodies...

If I only have 1.5 k or below, I'll just go for 17-55.

Just 2 cents