| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/25/2006 06:13:15 PM · #1 |
Yesssss!! My other camera sold for my asking price so now I can afford the wide-zoom I've been craving for the past year! So, we all know that canon's L-glass is pretty phenomenal and the EF 17-40 f/4 is still first choice atop my list (since the 16-35 2.8 is too dang much!). But I've read some pretty promising reviews about the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4. If I went that route, I'd have $$$ left over for rent, food or more toys! But who really needs to eat when there are photos to make!!?? :o) Sigma didn't fair so well in the wide-zoom department so nix on that on less someone knows any secrets. Any experiences on that?
So, if you had $700 burning a hole through your pocket, what would it be!? Either of the lenses I mentioned or something completely different!? Let you're imagination soar! Any help is greatly apprecitated! Thanks all 8o)
|
|
|
|
09/25/2006 06:17:37 PM · #2 |
| If you don't have a problem blowing the whole wad on a lense, buy the L glass. You won't regret it. |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 06:30:38 PM · #3 |
How much less could the Tamron be? The 17-40L is only $750 as it is. Although that is a lot of money, it's cheap for L-glass (their cheapest). My point is that the Tamron can't be that much less. If it's only $250 my question is whether you really believe that $250 can equal L-glass no matter who makes it or which lens it is...
The answer is going to be 'no' and thus you are simply left with the question of what do you want out of it. If you want as sharp as possible, get the L-lens. If it isn't that important, save the money.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2006 06:30:54 PM · #4 |
| Is the Tamron even out yet? I thought I saw it was comming out Jan. |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 06:34:21 PM · #5 |
17-40 :) and, in the Uk its not the cheapest, the 70-200F/4L is (you'll want that as well)
|
|
|
|
09/26/2006 08:07:14 AM · #6 |
| I was looking at a used/mint 17-40L lens, but the bidding got going and soon it was close to $500 USD (and lens was already 1-1/2 years old). I found a new 17-40L on-line for approximately $650 and ordered it last night...I figured $650 for new lens is better than $500 or so for a lens that's 1-1/2 years old. I don't have the link handy...I'll put it up in another post shortly. Luckily for me, the wife is out of town on business this week...overnight delivery means that I can play with it for a few days without her having to take delivery of the box and ask a bunch of annoying, dumb questions (ha-ha). |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 08:13:39 AM · #7 |
Two places have it for $650 plus change... here are the links:
17-40L #1
17-40L #2
Hopefully, both links will work. I ordered mine through Digital Foto...a few cents cheaper, and a little less for overnight delivery. According to the listings, both lenses are USA versions (if that matters to you).
I've read nothing but good to excellent reviews for this lens...I can't wait to get my mits on mine. Hope this info helps. |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 08:26:09 AM · #8 |
We have both the Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II LD. For the extra $300 I've been surprised at the quality of the Tamron and its output. I haven't used it on the 1Ds so I don't know how it would perform on your 1D but its easily a worthwhile investment from my standpoint. Its a constant f-stop throughout the range and we like the prints from it. This lens on the 30D is not as hyper sharp as the 17-40 L on the 1Ds but I've long since given up the idea that anyone but me cares about that anymore. My clients comment on the sharpness and clarity of images I'm not satisfied with by saying how good they are in comparison to others they've seen so I figure if they're happy with the results I'm happy enough with the results.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2006 08:32:53 AM · #9 |
just cuz i don't get to correct doctor's much - the 70-200 f4 and 200 2.8 are both L glass and cheaper than the 17-40 L.
:)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... it's cheap for L-glass (their cheapest)... |
|
|
|
|
09/26/2006 08:34:03 AM · #10 |
Things like rent and food are soooo over rated. You'd be homeless and starving, but just think what fantastic street candids you'll get with that new lens!
But seriously whatever lens you choose, buy it new and from a reputable dealer rather than trying to save a few bucks and hoping for the best. Happy shopping! |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 08:47:54 AM · #11 |
I went the Tammy SP 17-35mm route and couldn't be happier. I tried both physically and there was not enough difference in the pic quality to justify the cost of the Cannon. I like my Canon stuff but I'm not a fanboy either.
The 17-40 isn't white so if it is a you want the world to know you got L glass you will have to tell them. Some people need the world to know these things.
If you really want to pay rent KEH has (1) Tammy SP 17-35mm 2.8-4 in LN condition (like new at KEH, I found to be near mint condition) for $225.00
Message edited by author 2006-09-26 08:57:13. |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 09:31:12 AM · #12 |
I had both. I was perfectly satisfied with the Tamron but I got the Canon as a gift so I sold the Tamron. I liked the F2.8 on the tamron, thought it was fairly sharp, but it did hunt in low light. Its best advantage was indoors. It blew away the Sigma (lots of CA problems), which I also own but broke (the motor died). The money from the Tamron is going for the new Tokina fisheye next month - 10-17. I prefer the Canon (it is sharper and faster focusing but slower shutter) but I honestly don't use the lens length enough to give it a fair comparison.
The Tamron will do the job. It really depends on what you are using it for and how much you do use it. I highly advocate spending money for top glass in your most used telephoto range. I shoot lots of birds and sports so I need something long. The short stuff is really for those 'other' times and so the glass is less important - spend money where you'll use it most. As I said, I got the Canon as a gift. Had it been my choice I would have used the money for the 70-200L IS F2.8. But that's what I use most. |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 10:04:00 AM · #13 |
Thanks everyone for all of your wonderful advice! It is so appreciated! I think I've got a better idea the direction I want to go now. DPC rocks! 8o) Dahkota, you make and excellent point, that spending money for top glass in my most used range is the best way to go! That I've done with my 70-200 and 400. And the more I think about it, the more i realize the images I'll be making with the wide-zoom will mostly be printed fairly small scale and in black and white anyway. So I think I'll let the Tamron pay for itself quicker and when I have more demand for technically-perfect wide work, I'll save up and spring for the 16-35. For now, I'll work on refining my wide angle skills and afford to eat at the same time. 8o) You can rest assured I'll be posting heaps of new images when the lens arrives! Thanks again!!
BTW, Courtenay, I have your Drink photo hanging on my living room wall! Fantastic!! 8o)
Message edited by author 2006-09-26 10:09:08.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2006 10:12:39 AM · #14 |
| The Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 will work on DSLR with sensors bigger than the APS-C size but the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8-4 will only work with APS-C sized DSLR's. |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 10:38:04 AM · #15 |
From the 30 day SP challenge:
The 17-35mm is fun to have around at all times...it sure takes a beating from me. |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 10:49:04 AM · #16 |
excellent advice
Originally posted by dahkota:
I highly advocate spending money for top glass in your most used telephoto range. |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 05:31:11 PM EDT.
