Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by The_Eagle_Has_Landed, Mar 18, 2009.
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
Tokina 16mm - 50mm F/2.8 Pro DX Af
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC
I'm looking at the same range and I'm not considering anything except the Canon. I'm probably gonna go with a 16-35L though. I feel if I buy the 14-40 I'll be wishing I had the F2.8 of the 16-35 really quickly.
Tamron 17-50 > * of those
why do you say so, whats better about it
The 17-40 is a great lens. I love mine.
if u dont ever plan on going full frame, the 3rd party lenses
Besides having it and seeing how sharp it is, there are plenty of great reviews out there for it. I don't care for Sigma lenses for the most part and while Tokina makes some of the best wide angle lenses available, I don't see a lot of good things being said about their other lenses.
The Canon is a great lens too, but f/4 compared to f/2.8 sounds like a no-brainer.
The L gives you the build quality and AF speed that is sorely lacking in the tammy
build quality and af speed vs sharpness and f2.8....
save your pennies and wait
Who said the tammy is sharper?
2.8 is great for extra light in the viewfinder, but how often do you need 2.8 on an uwa?
why? what have you hearrrrd?!
True, but unless you're clumsy with your lenses or shoot fast action, where's the benefit?
thats what I said too, which is sorts true, but trying to use it in low light is just painful
Ask jcoleman about his 28-75
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a great lens if you don't want to go full frame anytime soon and you don't mind the AF noises. Very sharp and having a 2.8 constant aperture is really sweet. Nice range.
Canon makes a EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS that is supposed to be the top of the line for cropped bodies, but it's pricey.
If you don't need the 2.8, try to buy a Canon EF-S 17-85. It's a better range, so you'll change lenses less. If you're an f8 fan boy, it won't matter anyway.
17-40 is a good lens