I'm deciding between this and the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. Can anyone tell me the pros and cons between these two lens
1533863
Tamron pros: light, sharp, f 2,8 inexpensivecons: only for crop sensors, autofocus motor a little loud when searching for focus(has not bother me)CanonPros; EF for full and crop sensor, sharp, Cons; F4, shorter zoom, more expensive, heavier. I would recommend reading the reviews at the digital picture. Note, the VC version of the Tamron is not as sharp as the non-VCIt comes down to this, if you are going to stay with crop sensor, get the tamron
1533864
Get the Canon. Hands down. I've had both. You can do some research on line to trek you the pros and cons but coming from someone who used the tamaron for two years then bought the L, just save your money and get the Canon.
1533865
Tamron pros: light, sharp, f 2,8 inexpensive cons: only for crop sensors, autofocus motor a little loud when searching for focus(has not bother me) Canon Pros; EF for full and crop sensor, sharp, Cons; F4, shorter zoom, more expensive, heavier. I would recommend reading the reviews at the digital picture. Note, the VC version of the Tamron is not as sharp as the non-VC It comes down to this, if you are going to stay with crop sensor, get the tamron
1533866
You have 10mm more with the Tamron. You have twice the size aperture comparing 2.8 to 4. That is a huge huge difference. I tested mine in detail at the center and some spots around the corner AT THE SAME APERTURE with my Nikon 24-120, it is every bit as sharp under high magnification. I did quite a scientific comparison. If you know the outstanding optical quality of the Nikon 24-120, you'll be really impressed.
1784426
The lens is great for all around use. Tack sharp and worth every penny. If you plan on moving full frame it's worth it. On a DX body it will act like a 36-105. It's a bit on the weighty side but not over bearing. I have found the images have a certain pop to them that most other lenses can't provide unless they have the nano coating. Your other option is the great 17-55 which is designed for DX cameras. Look online there are some great reviews. If money isn't an issue go for it.
608746
I have both of these and they are excellent lenses. This is my profession and it I were to choose go with the 17-70, unless you don't need the extra reach and you mostly work in low light.
923248
Cannot speak for any lens other than the Panny 45-175 but have regarded it as one of my best lenses. Sharp, light and very useful range of zoom. I have an Oly OM E5 and this was a great choice for it.
1130016
I have both. The f/4 has only two advantages: it's much more portable, and it's much cheaper. But if you can afford the f/2.8, and if you can bring it where you want to use it (it's big, and you will probably want at least a monopod)--well, it's an amazing lens. Haven't regretted buying mine for an instant.
36983
I already had the 17mm f1.8 and the 45mm f1.8 which are great for low light. I decided to buy the 12-40mm f2.8 because it is weather sealed and a great workaround lens. If I had to decide I would choose the 12-40mm lens. Just be aware that you loose a little more than a stop of light when compared to the primes.
725619
This lens compares with and outperform the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L USM, I purchased this lens after my Canon broke down, I purchased the Sigma lens and have been use it more than the Canon Lens, fantastic lens and costs half of Canon's price.
501122
Thanks for the feedback. I ended up getting the Canon 17-55/2.8IS. It was more expensive, but I had come across some extra money. I've had that lens for several month now and it's awesome. The zoom range is excellent, it's great having f2.8 through the whole range, and the IS adds probably at least 3 stops. It's very sharp when I do my part, especially when it's stopped down a couple clicks. I would still love to get a lens like I described in my OP, but I'm looking at a wide angle zoom and a better telephoto lens before that one.
1413081
Get the 17-40mm and the 70-200mm f4 for less tha half the price. It's a two lens combo that is outstanding. The pictures are sharp,crisp, and saturated.
2240583
I have got the 17-85mm for less than two year and is really a fantastic beginners lens. But it has a very weak and poor mechanical construction. The internal tapes conducting the electronic signals are bad located and over the time the thin conductors break away and you will get err.1. So at that time the beatifull and affordable lens is unusable. My advise go with 17-40mm L lens that is optically superior and far far superior mechanical construction.
357729
To my understanding it is usually believed that 2470 is a better version than this one in the same focal length range.But there are other things to consider. How important is it for you to have the extra versatility, that is, the focal length of 70 to 120? How much do you care about the lost of aperture range? (And that depends on what you plan to shoot most often.) How important is the price difference to you? And weight differs, too.Actually, I envy the newest 750 model so much! lol. It certainly deserves good lenses.
1789044
The 2.8 works great for indoor pictures and the image quality difference is minimal. I've used both and I dont see any reason to buy the f/4 besides saving money. In April, Canon is updating the 2.8 lens with updated optics and the new IS. Alos the minimum focusing distance is shortened to just under 4 feet. I will be upgrading lenses at that time for sure. After having both lenses, my f/2.8 lens is the one that lives on the camera 95% of the time.
435060
I've had both IS and non IS, I have found that for the price this is a very handy lens to have. It works great outside, and as long as you have a semblance of a half way steady hand then not having the IS won't be a problem. Some of the issues you might encounter with this lens is when it comes to shooting in lower light situations, for example trying to take pictures inside especially at night if the room is not heavily lit. In that case the IS would help but that would only take you so far. Part of that is due to the lens speed. I found that if you take more pictures and try to stay aware of light you should do just fine. I love that this lens has the wide angle and the ability to super zoom. This has become my main travel lens, because of its versatility. For the price you can't beat it, I think its like $199 and just starting off as a new photographer its a good start. Yes there are better lenses out there BUT you will pay a Lot more for them as well.
465321
Depends on your current and future needs. I have the 17-40 and am happy with it. I also have a full frame camera and that was why I brought this lens.The 17-40 will act as a 27-64 on the 70D while the 10-22 is a EF-S lens which will not work if you ever want to upgrade to full frame.
465323
The 10-22 on you 70D is going to closely match the 17-40 range after adjusting for crop. It really is a personal choice. I stayed away from EF-S lenses because I knew I would eventually get a full frame camera, but if you really need the ultra wide of 16mm the the 10-23 is the only thing to get you there.
591605
the 20mm lens is a bit slower to focus but considerably sharper, I used them both with Cross Country action shots, and the 20mm blew the 17mm out of the photographic water so to speak.
1742136
If you want sharper images and faster focusing, you might instead consider getting one of the Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM models. The difference in image quality can be quite a startling. Back (WAY back) when I was looking to upgrade my old telephoto lens, someone gave me excellent advice that the difference between the newer telephotos I was considering was relatively small - too small to agonize over - and that if I really wanted to upgrade, I should just bite the bullet and get the L. One of the best pieces of advice on equipment I ever got. Once I tried the L, I never looked back. The one drawback is that the lens will spoil you forever.