A&P How better is the Canon 16-35/2.8L than the Tamron 17-35/2.8?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by StealthMode, Mar 5, 2005.

  1. StealthMode

    StealthMode Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    MN
    It's $1000 more...my boss told me skip the tamron, don't skimp on glass, get the canon... I am all for not skimping on glass, but is the Canon worth $1k more?
     
  2. JordanClarkson

    JordanClarkson OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2002
    Messages:
    59,942
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Go Dodger Blue!
    That Tamron's a 2.8-4 I believe. Sigma makes a 18-50 2.8 for the same price. neither have USM like the Canon.
     
  3. StealthMode

    StealthMode Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    MN
    What does USM mean exactly? I never got a clear explanation...

    So is the Canon worth the extra $1k?
     
  4. JordanClarkson

    JordanClarkson OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2002
    Messages:
    59,942
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Go Dodger Blue!
    it's just quieter when autofocusing, especially in AI servo mode. really not a big deal to me at all but it is for some people i guess.
     
  5. Tex

    Tex Now with avatar™

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Is your boss going to throw in the extra grand? :rofl:

    I posted in your other thread to the same effect, but a pro photographer I know bought a second hand 16-35 f/2.8L for about twice what I paid for my Tamron 17-35, and was pissed he didn't buy the Tamron. If I had all of the (many) test pics we took to compare the two lenses, you'd be hard pressed to pick which was which, and I bet you'd assume some of the shots came from the Canon when in fact they were the Tamron.

    That said, image quality isn't the only factor, the Canon lens may well be a lot better for focussing on moving targets and the like, I wouldn't know.

    USM stands for Ultra-Sonic Motor, it's a fast and very quiet focussing motor. If a lens has a ring-type USM motor that should also mean it's capable of full-time manual focus, meaning that even when the lens is switched to AF mode, you can grab the focus ring and use it manually without screwing the motor.
     
  6. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Canon Pros:
    sharper, constant apature, wider, weather sealed, better build quality, faster and quieter focusing, better quality control

    Canon Costs:
    price

    Is it worth it to you? To a lot of people, it is. If you're not making money off of photography, maybe not so much.
     
  7. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    If you compare a bunch of keepers, it's going to be hard to tell the difference, but whos to say you won't get more keepers with the Canon lens which has faster focusing than the Tamron? :dunno:

    I love my third party lenses, but when it's wet outside I won't use them. Granted, my body isn't weather sealed either, but if you're going to put yourself into situations where it will be really dusty or wet, theres nothing that can compare.
     
  8. StealthMode

    StealthMode Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    MN
    :sad2: All of a sudden I am not in the consumer bracket anymore, so consumer based products aren't going to cut and I need to buy professional quality.....thats great and all.....but it sure comes at a price :o

    Constant aperure is important, not the only thing, but it is important... Weather seald would be a huge plus, specially since the lenses I buy will outlast my camera, to me it is important to buy the better lens.. I really liked how fast and silent the focus was on the canon lenses, everything else felt cheap to me.

    As I look at myself now, no, I won't gain much from going with the Canon and the Tamron will be fine, but when I consider the long term effect, I would be better off buying something better since that is the direction I am heading.
    But at the same time I can't help but feel I am paying for the brand a little bit with Canon..
     
  9. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    You're turning into an elitist! :noes:

    Careful, the third party canon lens crew no longer welcomes you. :squint:
     
  10. StealthMode

    StealthMode Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    MN
    I don't even own a Canon lens atm... How could you kick me out! :wtc:
     
  11. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Oh. In that case. :cuddle: Get the Tamron. :noes: It's a pretty highly regarded lens in the third party crew. :o

    If you have the cash though, I'd always go for the canon 10 out of 10 times if cash wasn't an issue. :hs:
     
  12. StealthMode

    StealthMode Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    MN
    :werd: I may get the Tamron for now so at least I have something, and later on when money is better, trade it in on the canon. Or sell it to my god father, he may want it. :dunno:

    Not sure what I am going to do right now.. Personally, as long as the quality is good, I have no problems buying third party, but I am not going to skimp on glass. Period.
     
  13. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    Bleh, I don't like the way the Tamron looks . It doesn't have a pink L ring to match my pink Rebel XT . :riaa:
     
  14. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    What are you shooting anyway?
     
  15. StealthMode

    StealthMode Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    MN
    Everything!
    Kind of hard to be specific at this time, I am shooting anything from up close shots, rooms, ie. hotel rooms, etc. (wide angle lens helps here) outdoor photography (my Tamron 28-300 is pretty decent for this) and I am also getting into some portrait as well. I just started a new job and the photography end of things is going to become more serious as I go along, and of course I need to furnish my own equipment (would rather have it that way anyway) and so what I will be shooting will all depend on the client mostly.
    Also, low light situations shooting bands and what not. In the end I will have a few different lenses, but for now I need a faster wide angle.
    The 28mm on my 20D is getting close to 50mm on my 20D, so I have virtually no wide angle at all.
     
  16. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    Between the 17-35mm f/2.8 Tamron and the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L I would probably go with the Canon.

    Most of the time you don't need f/2.8 on a lens of this range -- or you could just go with a wide f/2.8 prime :dunno:
     
  17. StealthMode

    StealthMode Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    MN
    I'd prefer to have a little zoom range personally.. :dunno:
     
  18. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    Get a Nikon and a 17-55mm f/2.8 .
     
  19. StealthMode

    StealthMode Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    MN
    Why would I want a Nikon when I have a 20D?
     
  20. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    Because it's a :cool: lens
     
  21. vwpilot

    vwpilot New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,596
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 16-35 is not the best and most sharp lens out there, especially for the money. Unless you absolutely NEED the f/2.8 aperture, I would buy the 17-40 f/4 from Canon. That is a nice lens and is generally found to be sharper than the 16-35.

    I cant compare to the Tamron, but for the money the 17-40 is a great lens and one that I would consider if its in the same range or close to the Tamron. I would definately buy it over a 16-35.
     
  22. canonshooter

    canonshooter New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    936
    Likes Received:
    0
    I recently purcahsed the 17-40 and use if for 75% of my work, granted im almost always working with strobes i don't miss the extra stop that the 16-35 has.
     
  23. StealthMode

    StealthMode Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    MN
    Well if I was using strobes and lighting equipment for all my shots, then I wouldn't mind the F4 so much, but I don't have that luxery, so I need the exra stops... :sad2:
     
  24. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    What are you shooting? :dunno: What format will the final pics be used in?
     
  25. StealthMode

    StealthMode Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    MN
    Little bit of everything. From studio to outdoors, to low light gigs (bands in bars, club type events, etc) where lighting equipment aren't an option to drag along.

    Final format? Some posters, brochures, ads, etc.
    I am shooting RAW+JPG atm....man does that fill a 1gb CF fast :sad2: Going to order some more cards.
     

Share This Page