Wide angle lens recommendation

[STboy]

What I think is the Canon 17-40 4L is a transition lens. Due to the fact that it is "L" len, the resale price will be high compared to a third party lens.

There will be a day when u wake up in the morning and tell yourself, "I am going to be a professional photographer!"

That is when you sell your 4L for a 16-36 2.8L. Similiar case for 70-200 4L.

17-40L is so light. 400++gms only. The AF part, it's so quiet... for a moment I thought that it is not working.

A word of cautious check the flaring of the other lens(no experience with the other WA).

Welcome to the dark side....

 

[AReality]

Overall, a 17-40 is worth it. Considering the resale value for a 2 yrs + lens can be around 800$ or more. Whereas the tamron can only sell for at most 500$ if you can find a buyer.

 

[gryphon]

I was in the same exact dilemma as you. In the end i bought the Tamron 17-35mm
The price was the main factor. I do not think I'll be selling it off for better WA lens since its image quality is already very good. The loss of 5mm & extra F stop does not make a big differnce for me. AF is of cos slower but not a big concern for me.

 

[jybubba]

I bought the Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 EX DG Aspherical HSM recently. Was comparing with Canon 17-40mm L lens during purchasing but the f2.8-4 of this Sigma lens won me over. No regrets till now But realised Sigma lens are not that popular among camera users in this forum ;p

 

[esterp]

anyone has any experience with the Sigma 12-24?
What about the Canon/Sigma 15mm fish-eye.
Heard that they're real cool!
Any idea how much?

 

[Hein]

Hi Guys,

In the end, I bought the Tamron 17-35 for US$479. Very happy with the image quality, and did find the f/2.8 usefull when shooting indoors. The Canon costs like US$300 more ;(...

Focus IS slow, but not a major concern so far.. hehe, it's still WAY faster than my Tamron 90 SP macro

 

[scott]

If you're going to take street photography/candid shots/indoor candids using the tamron, U'll complain about the focusing speed, though the f/2.8 is tempting. The focusing turn from end to end is ard 45deg, & takes some time to turn. The canon 17-40 is USM, & is very much faster.

But if you're purely taking landscape/scenery, then a wider solution will be recommended. Recommend a 12mm.

I have been using Tamron 28-75 f2.8, I think the body design is the same with 17-35. Although it's not as nice as Canon USM (for focusing, turning, etc.), I found it acceptable.

 

[scott]

Overall, a 17-40 is worth it. Considering the resale value for a 2 yrs + lens can be around 800$ or more. Whereas the tamron can only sell for at most 500$ if you can find a buyer.

That means for Canon 17-40 you are losing $1250 - $800 = $450
but for Tamron, you'll only lose $600 - $500 = $100

Did I miss anything?

 

[AReality]

That means for Canon 17-40 you are losing $1250 - $800 = $450
but for Tamron, you'll only lose $600 - $500 = $100

Did I miss anything?

The tamron costs SGD900

 

[AReality]

I have been using Tamron 28-75 f2.8, I think the body design is the same with 17-35. Although it's not as nice as Canon USM (for focusing, turning, etc.), I found it acceptable.

The 28-75 focusing is fast because the focusing turn from end to end is only about 25 deg. 1/2 the angle of the 17-35.

 

[Kit]

There will be a day when u wake up in the morning and tell yourself, "I am going to be a professional photographer!"

That is when you sell your 4L for a 16-36 2.8L. Similiar case for 70-200 4L.

This is one thing that still baffles me. Why can't a person making a living taking photos continue to use his 17-40 if it suits his needs just fine?

 

[Kit]

That means for Canon 17-40 you are losing $1250 - $800 = $450
but for Tamron, you'll only lose $600 - $500 = $100

Did I miss anything?

I think you have to speak in terms of %. How can you expect to shave off $450 from the Tamron. Also, you'd be very lucky if you can sell a 2 year old Tamron for a price drop of $100.