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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 17, 2006, 11:42 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
AlpineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357
Default

What weird repeating shapes? Perhaps something wrong with your photo viewer?

The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is SHARPER than the Canon 17-40mm f4L. I've done testing on these 2 lenses personally and I can vouch for all the excellent reviews you see on the net about the Tamron. The only thing I didn't like about the Tamron was the noisy auto focus...

Check out the MTF of the Tamron vs Canon here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...40_4/index.htm

See?

AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2006, 11:57 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

I've read this article about the tamron, and that's the reason I have a problem to decide which one to buy.

maybe you shot your picture wht adobe rgb and it doesn't display well on the internet.

Anyways it is a gerat lens and still think that the 14-70mm performs better, the contrast of the Canon lens is superb, and it is sharp also, ofcourse build quality is awsome, but again I've heard positive and negative things about the canon lens, and most of them 90% were positive ones, and they say that this is there favorite lens of all, I am still having hard time to decide.
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2006, 12:00 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

Do you think the Canon 17-40mm will perform well on 10MP camera like the Rebel XTi ?

BTW: I saw comparison beetwin those two lenses and the Tamron was sharper but there was a pinkish cast that you could see when you compared two images from the same scene in that review.
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2006, 12:13 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

Where does your Tamron made ? which country ?

BTW: I can get the Canon's lens at the same price of the Tamron's
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2006, 12:16 PM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Idan wrote:
Quote:
BTW: I saw comparison beetwin those two lenses and the Tamron was sharper but there was a pinkish cast that you could see when you compared two images from the same scene in that review.
Isn't the Auto White Balance suppose to filter out any tint from the front of the camera?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2006, 12:18 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

The comparison was professionaly made, my father he is pro photographer and he told me that 3rd party lenses has kind of coloring effect that canon's lenses odesn't have.

So you are saying to dump the 17-40mm lens ??
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2006, 12:25 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

Just dont trouble yourself. from what i see, u seem to love the 17-40. Even if u convince urself to get a 17-50 or a 16-50 or a 18-50 u will still miss the 17-40

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"The best way to answer your question is that go ahead and buy the 17-40 and start taking pictures.

There are so many people here who love their third party lens. I love my 17-50 and the 12-24. Even the cheapest zoom 70-300 is a great buy compared to the cheap version from canon.

THe best results are when u start taking pictures. It becomes a personal choise after u buy a lens to get the best out of it.

No hard feelings, but if u do like the 17-40 go out and get it with the rebates and u can get it for around 600(in case of single rebate)

the tamron is 420 in buydig today with free shipping.the 17-40 is around 650 with 45 dollor rebate.

main difference u will find between non canon and canon lens is

1) focussing speed and noise during focussing(motor)

2) Build.One is weather proof(but whats the point if i dont have a weather proof camera)

3) F4 and F2.8

Regarding optics. As far as i see the 17-50 is optically as good or even better in some situations like at 17mm when compared with canon.

Vj
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2006, 12:42 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

It is not about loving, I want to invest my money in a great wide angle lens, becuase that lens will be on my camera most of the time, I would also like to hear from people of have the 17-40mm lensm some photos can realy help tough, I so photos from the Tamron and they are very sharp and color are nice.

The 17-40mm is a very popular lens, and the Tamron is brand new (2006) so ptobably not many photofraphers use itm but the reviews on the Tamron are very positive indeed, I've postedbefire some photos from the Canon 17-40mm that I saw in pbase and there were so sharp.

Can you tell me are there any other paramteres for a lens that I should look at exept sharpness and built quality and weather resistence.
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2006, 1:04 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

Firstly i look for the image from the lens. For example the 50mm f1.8 is 70 bucks compared to 50mm f.14 USM (arnd 330)

But the image the 50mm f1.8 delivers is more than enough for me(i am not selling photos yet. And even if i sell i am sure the 50mm f1.8 is more than enuff for it)


Secondthing for me was the cost effectivenes. If i can get great/good results by spending 150 dollors less, i would be thinking about buying a flash for the 150 and some neccessary things.

Build, service, warranty and others come next.

between 1 year warranty and 6 year warranty i would pick 6 year because i am sure if the lens has to fail i have six years to get it serviced or even replaced. And a lens giving me 6 years of relentless service with "Excellent' picture quality is good for me

Finally if i am not a professional photographer who earns money, and if its just a hobby, i will try for cost effective best solution

Vj


nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2006, 3:51 PM   #20
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Idan wrote:
Quote:
Can you tell me are there any other paramteres for a lens that I should look at exept sharpness and built quality and weather resistence.
Well, the most important criteria is: does the lens have the capabilities to do the job you want it to.

1. Is it the right focal length.

2. Do you have certain aperture requirements as determined by your shooting needs - i.e. do you need 2.8, 2.0, 1.8 or 1.4 apertures? Is 4.0 good enough for what you want to shoot?

3. Vignetting and barrel distortion and CA - these are often the problems that show up at wide or long end on lower end lenses. Even when sharrpness may be there these other things creep in. So, if wide is important to you, you want to find out how well the lens performs at 17mm, not at 24mm. The wide end and long end and wide open are where the better lenses usually seperate themselves from the other cheaper lenses. Stopped down and in the middle of the focal range you're not likely to notice many differences between lenses

4. Focus speed - if it's important to you. Sometimes it's not important so no need to obsess over it. Sometimes it is - and it can be worth spending extra $$$. As an example, Canon's 85mm 1.8 lens focuses faster than the original 85mm 1.2 - even though the 1.2 has a wider aperture and both are technically USM (different type of USM). So, if shallow DOF was the most important aspect, the 1.2 is a better lens but if focus speed is important the 1.8 is the better lens.

5. ROI (return on investment) - As Nymphetamine pointed out - most of us have to weigh the costs against the gains. When I originally bought a 70-200 2.8 lens, I chose to buy the less expensive Sigma version - it was $400 less than the Canon version and, IMO, provided 90-95% of the quality of the Canon. To me it wasn't worth the extra $400 to get that extra 5-10% The remaining money went towards a TC and a flash which IMO provided much more ROI than buying the single 70-200 2.8 lens. When I bought my 17-40, at the time there wasn't a good third party lens IMO. There are more now but they weren't available. The ones that were were not as good. When I needed a 300mm 2.8 lens for sports work I bought the Sigma 120-300 rather than the 300mm canon prime. It was half the cost and again provided 85-90% of the benefit. I again could not justify spending another $2,000 to get that extra benefit. The money saved allowed me to stay married :G

6. Do you ever intend to move off an aps-c sized camera? Canon currently has 3 different sensor sizes: full frame, 1.3 and 1.6. Certain lenses are designed to work only on the 1.6 cameras. If you ever move to one of the other sizes you have to sell your lenses and buy new ones. Many people have no intention of ever moving to one of the other sensor sizes. But some do - so that can be a factor in which lenses you buy.
JohnG 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 10:34 AM.