Tamron 17-50mm vs Sigma 18-50mm vs Canon 17-40mm?

[kyle_opitz]

I am looking for a good walk around zoom lens for -$700, for my 30D. This has

probably already been asked before but does anyone have any suggestions on any

of these lenses?

 

Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD $449.00

 

Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC $409.00

 

Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 17-40mm f/4L $679.00

 

I know people speak highly of canon lenses especially the ones with that "L"

beside them, but can anyone tell me how the other two stack up against the Canon?

Thanks alot.

[dogbert]

I went with the sigma. According to photozone at f4 the sigma performs at or a bit above the Canon, so having f2.8 in the sigma is a useable bonus. The extreme corners of the sigma are a little soft, though the PZ review includes no info on the extreme corners of the Canon.

 

In its favour, the Canon has USM, FF coverage and will likely hold its value a bit better than the Sigma.

[chrisjb]

Hi, I`ve used a couple of sigma EX lenses for a while, while they are well made and quite sharp I would not call them a long term investment, used heavily they don`t last, I`m on the 3rd 15 30 in 5yrand the 24 70 2.8 is ok.by heavy use we shot 3500 pics with the 24 70 on a 3day karate tournament an a 20d, and 7000 on a 1dmk2 with canon 70 200.

 

The tamron is probably a little better for compatability reasons, both sigma & tamron mentioned only work with cropped bodies, (correct me if wrong). Therefore if you graduate to a FF body they won`t work.

 

17 40 is not a large range but it may suit you, the build and versitility to be used on film and FF will make it a longer keepsake.

 

if you intend sticking to cropped bodies look at the Canon 17 85IS for a larger walkaround lens or 17 55 2.8 if shooting in low light with a little faster lens.

 

good luck

[morthcam]

The Tamron 17-50 also will not work with a full-frame camera.

[morthcam]

Sorry Chris, that's what you said, I need more coffee.

[images_in_light_north_west]

Hands down EF17-40 very sharp I use it for landscapes, I think the 24-105f4 would be better for walk around, although its $1200.

[wandern]

I have the Tamron and find it to be quite good optically. I would not consider an f4 lens for a walkaround lens, especially as I do a lot of natural light shooting in the evenings. The 30d AF also takes advantage of the faster lens.

 

The disadvantages of the Tamron are a noisy AF motor, and a lack of FTM focus override. Each time I put on a nice Canon USM lens, I'm mildly irritated about my Tamron, but the optics have been good enough to keep me happy, especially for the price. It's a bit soft wide open (but what inexpensive lens isn't?).

 

I would avoid the Sigma solely because of horrible CA, which on the Tamron is extremely well controlled. In fact, I have found it to be so minimal, I have seldom found it necessary to address in PP, even in stark shooting conditions.

 

I believe that photozone.de has done some fairly extensive tests on the Tamron at the least (edit: they also have the Sigma and Canon- you may wish to look at their tests before buying).

 

As a walkaround lens, if you don't plan do extensive manual focusing, I would say the Tamron is an excellent deal for the price.

[delwyn_ching]

If you need a fast lens such as f/2.8 then go with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Otherwise, I would go with the canon 17-40L IMO, it's a bit sharper in the corner and edges than both the Tamron and Sigma.

[donnydarko]

You might take my experience into consideration. I own a 17-35 EX Sigma, e.g. the best super wide-angle they make. Nice lens, cheap, sharp... I thought. Then, on some important pictures, as it always happens with important pictures, two corners were totally blurred. The lens did not fall nor was it handled wrongly in any way. So, I sent it to Sigma. Weeks later, it came back. I tested it: same problem, but worse. I sent it back to service, and there it is again, since weeks. I can hardly remember it, it is so long ago...

 

But if you ask some press photogs you will probably hear similar stories about Canon's service... according to these stories, it is not better at all. Nevertheless, I would buy the Canon L glass, these lenses have a good record of reliability, sharpness... and price. You get some kind of water protection, too, just in case of some water drops that might kill the electronics of a cheaper lens. If you have a chance to try these lenses in a shop, try the autofocus. Canon's might be the fastest, and it will probably be quite silent when focusing.

[wburychka]

My suggestion for a "walkaround" is none of those you or others mentioned, and here is why. Usually, when one says walkaround, that means walkaround with one lens. All those you are considering are too short for an all-purpose lens--at least they would be for me. And a couple of those suggested by others would not be wide enough for me. 24mm has an AOV like 44mm on a FF. That's more like a short normal lens, and that won't cut it for close quarters or wide/closeup shots.

 

When I "walk around", I use the Canon 17-85mm IS. The image stabilization is a plus on the long end, and the overall range is comparable to a 28-135 on a FF camera. Remember that Henri Cartier-Bresson never published a photo taken wider than 28mm or longer than 135mm, and he was the king of "walkaround" photographers. Yeah, the 17-85 suffers from CA, but then so does the 17-40 (but to a far lesser extent--no flames, please!)

 

The lens I'm waiting for is the recently announced Sigma 18-200mm OS (Optical Stabilized). Sigma's other OS lens, the 80-400mm, has proven that Sigma understands stabilization, and walking around with a lens equivalent to 320mm at the long end calls out for stabilization or a tripod! From reviews I've seen, the current Sigma 18-200 would be sharp enough for my walking around. The stabilized version will be exactly what I need.

[yakim_peled1]

All three are great lenses but the Canon is the only one which offers you the fastest AF, the best build quality, FF compatibility and future compatibility. I think that it worth the extra stop but YMMV.

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[bill owens]

My Canon 17-40 was stolen. I was always disappointed in it for being too soft on the long end. I replaced it with the Tamron and am very pleased with it. Just shot a wedding with it last week and I couldn't be happier with the results--so much sharper than the Canon. It won't work on FF and it won't have the same resale, but I'd recommend it over the Canon if you don't anticipate going FF. It's sharper, smaller and lighter, and otherwise comparable on all other counts (distortion, CA, vignetting, contrast, color) except AF noise and presumably quality and sealing. The latter two are much less important to me than resolution. And it's over $200 cheaper.

[cory_anderson]

I'm having the exact same dillema right now. I have a 30D and an old 24-85 USM. Interesting side note: I have discovered that my 24-85 has a slight back focus issue and is just not as sharp as on the 30D as it was on film. Canon said that I cannot have the lens upgraded to be 100% compatable with the newer focusing systems. My old 75-300 USM has the same problem. <br><br>

So I want an equivalent range in a new lens, but faster. I want better low light hand holding capability, and better natural light shutter speeds. The 17-85 IS is a great lens, but it won't give me higher shutter speeds. So I think that 2.8 is the way to go. It sounds like the Tamron is the best option there. For me, f4 is not fast enough, that one stop makes a difference. And plus, the 17-40 is not a big enough range. I think I'm going to go for the Tamron 2.8.

[andrew_skrzypek]

I just recently purchased a 30D, and I too needed a "versatile" lens that wasn't going to cost me an arm and a leg. I read many reviews and the best review I found to be at www.the-digital-picture.com/. Optically the Tamron was equal if not better than the Canon, and the author recommended the Tamron due to better build and better lens cap. Maybe these are not the most important to some, but as far as IQ goes, the lens has really impressed me, and the price has allowed me to buy additional lens'. People say the Af is noisy, but I would more accurately say that you can hear it. It's not annoying noisy. Good luck, I'm sure you will be happy with any of them.

[andrew_skrzypek]

Oh, by the way, I paid $419.00 for my Tamron, free S&H, and from a very reputable authorized dealer, took actually 2 business days, with signatured proof of delivery.