Lens: Canon 17-40L/f4 or Sigma 17-35mm/f2.8-4 or Tamron 17-35mm/f2.8-4?

[lhfoo]

Why is the Sigma 15-30 left out of this poll? It's a pretty good (and affordable) WA lens IMHO.

I know ... and another good WA candidate is the Sigma 12-24mm.
But I was just trying to reduce the options .... too much options may not be good when you really need to decide what is ur next lens going to be ... .

 

[mama]

If you are looking for best value, try Tamron and I think Sigma "DG" 17-35mm not in town yet, I have tried many places dun seem to find anyone have it. Did some basic test, at 17mm the corner of the picture seem a bit blur and probably going to do some more test and let you know again.
The earlier model of the Sigma 17-35mm not quite happening, you can take a look at this link: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=95&sort=7&thecat=29

 

[lhfoo]

If you are looking for best value, try Tamron and I think Sigma "DG" 17-35mm not in town yet, I have tried many places dun seem to find anyone have it. Did some basic test, at 17mm the corner of the picture seem a bit blur and probably going to do some more test and let you know again.
The earlier model of the Sigma 17-35mm not quite happening, you can take a look at this link: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=95&sort=7&thecat=29

Yup, the older Sigma 17-35mm is probably not that good ... but the larger filter diameter of 82mm is also a turn-off. But the newer DG is more attractive and uses 77mm filter size. Hmmm, it is already on sale in US Adorama.

 

[lhfoo]

There are a couple of shots comparing the Tamron 17-35 to the Canon 17-40L here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=7538890

Based on what I can see, optically, the Tamron seems a tad soft wide open but at F4 onwards where it competes with the Canon, I find they are about on par. In fact I find the Tamron to be a tad sharper and brighter. Wondering if my eyes are deceiving me? Pretty impressive optics for 1/2 the price I must say if these pictures are worth their salt

Thanks!!! That is a good review. I have to agree with you, the Tamron lens look sharper due to better contrast at f4.0. Resolution wise, you can't tell the difference. The extra stop for Tamron at f2.8 looks a bit soft but better than what I expected.

Hmmm, looks like what is still missing is the comparison against the Sigma new DG lens.

BTW, just noticed that there is another relevant thread in ClubSnap:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=62452

 

[mama]

Yup, the older Sigma 17-35mm is probably not that good ... but the larger filter diameter of 82mm is also a turn-off. But the newer DG is more attractive and uses 77mm filter size. Hmmm, it is already on sale in US Adorama.

Singapore is like kinda of slow in New lenses, I am eyeing the Sigma 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 EX OS too, call sigma in Singapore they told me just started production must wait until 2oth March 2004, sound so funny, she probably dunno that the lens was introduced during Photokina 2002.

 

[Shib]

When you bought an L len, get ready to spend more for more L lens! :cry:

 

[Wai]

Because not all people like warm coloured lenses. I prefer lenses that produce netural colour ..... I might go for the Tamron 17-35 DI if it is proven good and netural colour.

I found the colour of my previous Sigma 15-30 a bit too cold, and difficult to get 82mm filter

since i shoot digital more, the colour still can be corrected using photoshop, so colour is not a really big issue to me and i prefer warmer colour

i love my Canon 17-40 for its colour, sharpness and build quality, no regret for getting a brand new one :thumbsup:

 

[goering]

Take these blind tests and see if you can correctly ID the lens

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=7768830

and

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=7763251

It appears (at least from my own eyes) that the Tamron is optically superior-although not by a lot. This makes the Tamron a very compelling and cheaper alternative to the 17-40L.

The f2.8 at 17mm is a small bonus although i find f2.8 somewhat soft - from my earlier link. But as mentioned by the thread starter, the canon is better at flare resistance and of course build quality & autofocus

 

[lhfoo]

Take these blind tests and see if you can correctly ID the lens

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=7768830

and

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=7763251

It appears (at least from my own eyes) that the Tamron is optically superior-although not by a lot. This makes the Tamron a very compelling and cheaper alternative to the 17-40L.

The f2.8 at 17mm is a small bonus although i find f2.8 somewhat soft - from my earlier link. But as mentioned by the thread starter, the canon is better at flare resistance and of course build quality & autofocus

Wow ... thanks for the links .... didn't notice the links since it was just posted a couple of days ago.

Yup, you're right .... Tamron beat Canon hands down in those photos. I guess the only reason one will go for Canon is the USM for faster and quiter focusing and the weather-sealed construction. Well, I don't need the weather-sealed but USM is good.

Saw another link on Sigma DG vs Canon comparison:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=7650197

 

[AReality]

So is the tamron lens on the shelf already?
How much does it cost?

 

[blurblock]

So is the tamron lens on the shelf already?
How much does it cost?

Konota --- $590
AP --- $560
Cathay -- $650

The rest .... don't know .... me only ask this three ..... civil servant habit .... get three quotes ...... whahahahhaahhaha

 

[goering]

Konota --- $590
AP --- $560
Cathay -- $650

The rest .... don't know .... me only ask this three ..... civil servant habit .... get three quotes ...... whahahahhaahhaha

Which Tamron are you referring to? This thread is primarily about the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4

If the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 is indeed this price range, I'll go grab one. The last I asked it was around $900

 

[AReality]

I'm looking at this...
http://www.tamron.com/35mm/35mm_af/a1735a05.htm

I got the impression it's around $900 too...

Can confirm?
Thanks.

 

[HOHOHOe]

Asked a friend to check with Alan Photo, quoted him $830 for the 17-35 DI.

 

[djork]

i bought the canon 17-40, i tried it before i bought, solid built, but somehow i prefer the zoom ring to be bigger. sometimes i grab the focus ring by mistake. but.. but i don't give a hoot about colour tone (regardless of lens) when everyone's monitor is different and u can adjust using photoshop?

 

[centrino]

if sigma, tamron is around 900, I would rather add 300 to buy a canon L lens. Even among canon L lenses, it's one of the best. don't forget it's an all weather lens too.

 

[shuttlebox]

buy buy buy the 17-40 F4L... this lens is definately a steal for the price.

 

[djork]

after using the 17-40 for a month, i can say the results of the photo shot using the 17-40 wide open is very acceptable for me.., i never hesitate to use it wide open.

 

[freelancer]

TK Foto at Shaw Tower was selling the 17-40L at $1260 w/gst few weeks ago.

17-40/4 is selling around RM2700 (S$1200 approx) or less in KL.

In my opinion it is optically better than the Sigma or Tamron. Besides that you get a fast quiet AF motor and excellent L lens build quality.

 

[perror]

The nice things about the 17-40...very good performance, sharp, fast and silent AF, DWR should the need arise in the future. Only drawback..77mm filters..a circular PL for that would cost a bomb.. :cry:

RM2700 seems somewhat steep to me as I got mine for RM2400...