Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 14, 2006, 3:18 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

I have Canon XTi

I bough today the Tamron 55-200mm DII, and I use the wide range the most so I've decided to by the Canon 17-40mm L f4 for wide, and I already have the Canon 50mm 1.8 MKII.

So what do you think of this combination?
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 14, 2006, 3:57 PM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Idan wrote:
Quote:
So what do you think of this combination?
Well, it all depends on what your goals are beyond 'wide' and 'long'. The 17-40 is a great lens, but for some people it is not wide enough on a crop camera. If you find that 26mm equivelent is wide enough then I think you'll be very happy with this lens. If you don't end up thinking it's wide enough then you won't be happy. I use one and am very happy with it - it's rare that I've wanted something wider but others who do more landscape shooting probably feel differently.

As for the Tamron. I don't know anyone that uses it but I've read a couple reviews on it. The one review probably gave an accurate assessment as this lens is targeted at those people that bought a camera with a 17-55 kit lens and just 'want more reach'. At roughly $170 that's probably a pretty accurate statement.

You can likely expect the lens to perform better when stopped down to f8 (which is common for most consumer grade lenses - even pricier ones) and can expect the pictures to be a bit softer at 200mm (again, usually where most telephoto zoom lenses perform their worst).

Expect, because it's a 5.6 lens, autofocus will be somewhat sketchy as you get lower light.

It's also a plastic lens - you'll see quite a difference in build quality with that lens compared to the 17-40.

And, at that price point it probably is not fast focusing - not much of an issue unless you plan on doing wildlife or sports photography.

But, hey, what do you want for under $200? Most of us have to get started on a limited budget so if it allows you to get the shots you want at the quality you can live with that's the only criteria that matters.

Good luck with your new toys. Be sure to post some shots in the various picture forums when you get some.





JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2006, 4:55 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

I did my calulations, the finance and the optical ones, and knew what I was getting into, I am not prepared to invest in two L enses right now, but I know for sure tha I will use the 17-40mm more then the tele ones so for now, I've chosen to buy a very good wide lens and a medicore tele lens, for portrait my 50mm is doing a good job, so let see what the next day will bring, I can asure you that it's gonna be lots of photos, hopefully good ones. Thanks for your advice, and I will show you some of my photos soon enough.

Regards,

Idan.
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2006, 4:08 AM   #4
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

From your earlier posts you seem to be very concerned with lens sharpness.

In that respect I would suggest that the 17-40 L is not the best choice.

It has all the L virtues; low CA, excellent build quality, well-controlled distortion, fast and quiet USM focus motor. It's an excellent lens in many respects.

However it's not as sharp as the reduced-frame digital only lenses. The 17-85 is noticably sharper, and in fact it's not even much sharper than the 18-55 kit lens.

Certainly many of the new lenses like the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Sigma 18-55 f2.8 are much much sharper lenses, though they fall short of the L quality in other areas.

I personally don't believe sharpness to be that important beyond a certain level of respectability (which the 17-40 does reach).

For a little less money you can get the 17-85 IS, which for me (as long as you are not going full-frame any time soon) is a much more sensible choice.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2006, 4:25 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...a_PIE2006.html

these are few lenses supposed to be released by this fall. Looks exciting. May be if u can wait one of lens may work out for u

the 17-85 is a great lens. The IS works in many cases. At 18mm i find the lens to be a lot better than at 17mm. I often get to 17mm tweak the zoom a little bit and get good results.

I did sell the 17-85 and bought the 17-50 F2.8 tamron, and am really happy with the same.

Its really sharp even at 17mm. Its the walk around lens for now. But i am moving on to 5D and looking at 24-105 L for my walk around. I have a 12-24 which i am planning to experiment with 5D .



Vj
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2006, 11:46 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
AlpineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357
Default

For the budget you had in mind (the money you spent on those 2 lenses already), I would have gone with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro. Both lenses get rave reviews. I've owned the Tamron, and the reviews are right...very sharp and contrasty...sharper than my brother-in-law's Canon 17-40mm f4L and 17-35mm f2.8L, and sharper than my old Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC. I tried out the Sigma 70-300mm as well, and it's really surprising how good it is considering its price. If you decide to get the Sigma 70-300mm...make sure you're getting the "APO DG Macro" version, as there's another version that isn't quite as good.
AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2006, 12:17 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

I've bought the Tamron 55-200mmm and WOW ! - what amazing images, it's even sharper then my 50mm 1.8II, I am uploading some images taken inside my house few minutes ago, and I will share it with you, I've decided to try a lens that is specificly matched the digital sensor size, I've read good reviews about this lens and decided to buy it, it was (here at least) cheaper, almost two times that the sigma's so I made out my mind, and I must say I am very impressed, the photos as I mentioned are much sharper that the 50mm 1.8II, I was surprised myself, pictures in a few minutes....
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2006, 12:32 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

OK, just to let you know that I will keep uploading images every few minutes so I will start with 2 ..... please say your opinion, I know it is not outside but because it is evening here tomorrow I will bring some day shots as well. you can download them and watch the exif, most of them are 200mm.

CLICK HERE
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2006, 12:55 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
AlpineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357
Default

I dunno about anyone else, but I don't see any "umph" on any of the images. All the colors are dull. Is it the subjects or the lens?
AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:34 AM.