Canon 5D with a Tamron 17-35 vs Canon 16-35 L

[mike_hardiman]

Hi folks,

 

Planning to purchase a 5D here very shortly, but am stuck on a choosing an

ultra-wide zoom. I've seen plenty of reviews on the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 Di LD

lens, but they were all based on an APS-sized sensor camera (300D, 30D, etc).

 

Has anyone used the Tamron with a full frame Canon EOS camera? How does corner

sharpness and vignetting compare to the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L?

 

Thanks!

-Mike

[lovcom_photo]

The Tam is not often sharp wide open, based on the copies I've tested.

 

The Canon provides better color rendition, contrast, and is sharper through most of the F-stop range, and focal range.

 

I have the 16-35L and I highly recommend it...it's the very best in that focal range, for a zoom.

 

Also, the Tam does not provide F2.8 through it's focal range.

 

The Canon is sealed from moisture, and dust too. The Tam is not.

[PuppyDigs]

The Tam also doesn't focus very well or fast compared to the Canon and feels cheap in the

hand. IF you're going to buy such a revealing and expensive body, why not fit it with the best

glass? If you need to save a few greenbacks, consider the EF 17-40 4L USM. It's as sharp as

the 16-36 L, built as well, sealed but shy $600 and a stop.

[dmanthree]

Be sure to read the report here...

 

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/48/sort/2/cat/23/page/1

 

...before you buy this lens. It looks pretty bad on a FF cam.

[michaelschrag]

I'm not sure why you would look at that particular Tamron? Did you see this review (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm)? The new Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [iF]came out with some impressive numbers. Again, the problem is that the review was done on a smaller sensor camera. However, Klaus also reviewed the 16-35mm on a reduced sensor and this new Tamron easily rivals it based upon the reported numbers.

 

I've used a 16-35mm lens (barrowed for a trip) and no doubt its a fine lens with exceptional build, but for $450 and a larger zoom range the Tamron seems like a "no-brainer" if the photozone review holds up.

 

Any body have experience with this lens?

[michaelschrag]

Hmmm....I was so impressed by the numbers from this new lens that I did not notice that its not a full-frame lens. I am sure that's why Mike did not consider it. As Rosana Dana Dana says - "never mind"

[mike_hardiman]

David - Thanks for passing that review along... that was exactly what I was afraid of, and was unable to find up til now.

 

Michael - I saw that 17-50 Tamron and had the same delayed reaction you did, took me a while to figure it out it was not for full frame. By the way, it was Gilda Radner's "Emily Litella" that always said "never mind!" :)

 

Looks like the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L will be the way to go, and it will be nice to have that extra stop through the whole focal distance as well, since that's what is keeping me from the Canon 17-40 f/4L. I'll give the 17-40 another look, but that one extra stop can become critical when doing long exposure night photography.

 

Thanks for your help!

-Mike

[dmanthree]

Mike,

 

If you need the extra stop, go for it. But I can personally vouch for the 17-40 f4L on a FF camera. It's very good.

[roger pfister]

"... I can personally vouch for the 17-40 f4L on a FF camera. It's very good."

 

Agreed - of all my many lenses it is the one that 'lives' on my 5D. :)

 

--

Roger

[alaninbow]

I've used the Tamron with an EOS 50E and 100 ISO E6 film. The nearest 2mm in the corners is

not sharp, but otherwise I'd say it's fine. I initially got unsharp results, but removing the

cheap UV filter cured the problem. The attached corner of a picture at 17mm is 1/64 of the

film area, you can clearly see the film grain..

 

Alan Tucker<div></div>

[david_fulp]

<p>PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS - NOT scientific - I have both the Tamron and Canon 17-40. I use them on a 5d and 5dm2. The 17-40 is clearly superior on the 5d at almost every combination... but the Tamron 17-35 actually gets better on the 5dm2. Impossible I thought (and read), but I can clearly see a visually significant improvement on corner sharpness on the 5dm2 edges at 17mm 5.6 when compared to the same settings/same subject on the 5d. "Almost" as good as the 17-40.</p>

<p>Bottom line: NO doubt the Canon 16-35mm ($1450) and 17-40 ($750) L's are superior to the Tamron 17-35 ($399) at most settings, but for the budget minded the Tamron has a very workable sweet spot between 5.6 to f/16 through most of the range on a 5d or 5dm2. Just don't wander out of the sweet spot if edge sharpness is important.</p>

<p>NOTE: Ebay used (Ex condition) prices for the three seem to be around $1200 for the 16-35, $550+ for the 17-40 and about $200-250 for the Tamron.</p>

<p>NOTE 2: I use EXPENSIVE B&W UV filter on my 17-40... Even with that, edge sharpness definately degrades significantly with the filter on at 17mm... at 18+ all is OK... when I go maximum wide... I remove the filter, shoot, then put the filter back on. I can imagine that cheap filters on ANY of these lenses would be much worse.</p>

<p>d</p>