Well, I have actually gone with the 17-40. I bought one off the forums (should be getting it tomorrow).
Dfresh: I have one slight difference, I am not replacing both the kit lens and tamron with the 17-40 L. I am replacing only the kit lens with the 17-40L so I will have both 17-40 and the tamron 28-75. Use the tamron when I am indoors, use the canon when I am outdoors, or when I need wider than 28 indoors (very rare, only for ocassional group shots).
jackkrash: I don't really want to buy an L lens that overlaps what I have already without replacing it. 200 L would not replace my Sigma 70-200 2.8 because I rarely go all the way to 200. I find the Sigma sharp enough for my purposes, so as long as it is sharp to me, I have no reason to replace that. (I shouldn't say that because I've been thinking about upgrading to 70-200 L IS in the future).
Patrick: Very true about the 17-40 lasting longer than my body. And when I do upgrade to full frame, I doubt I'd have a problem with the 17-40 ever being not wide enough. I have never found my kit lens to be not wide enough for any of my shooting, but then again, I am just a newbie without the experience.
smaniscalco: I simply dont have more than 600 to spare. If I were to go that route, I woud probly just get the Tokina 12-24 with less of a gap. I do hear great things about the canon 10-22 though.
I'd say get the 17-40 anyway. True you have 28-75 at 2.8 if you need the speed... But I am willing to bet the Tamron, while being sharp, won't produce the same picture as the 17-40 L will.... Call it a hunch...
Oops.. didn't read the second page... I am guilty of that a lot.. Maybe if they'd put what page you were on before the quick reply box I'd notice it more.
I think you made a wise decision. Let us know how you like it.
HKram wrote:
70-200F4 could have been a suggestion - you killed it with a Sigma
24-70 could have been a suggestion - you killed it with a Tamron
And Canon does not have a real wide angle with the red line!!?? Have heard the Canon 10-22 is pretty much an L. Maybe you could give them a little leeway....
To your qtn, the 17-40 does have a huge overlap with the 28-75. If you dont have the kit lens, maybe its a good idea.....OK, you do have the kit lens also. Save your money Or buy me a lens....
The 70-200 SIgma is an awesome lens, you must have had a bad copy for you not to like it. I will put my sigma against a canon anyday and get same results.
The tamron is an awesome lens and many wedding photographers would rather use it than a canon since it is just as sharp and lighter.
10-22 is an awesome lens, get that do not get the 17-40 as it is too ,much overlap and you wont use your tamron anymore.
Too late. My canon came today. Havn't go a chance to shoot with it outdoors yet, but the USM alone is enough to make me drool against the tamron. I would have considered the 10-22 if I had enough money, but I didn't, so I didn't consider it. I dont think that I will leave the tamron in the bag because I now have the 17-40. The Canon is going to be great for my outdoor shooting for landscape, portrait, and other outdoor pictures that don't require a long focal length. The Tamron however, is still quite the performer and knowing that I shoot tons of pictures indoors, I doubt the Tamron would stay in the bag. I think these two are going to compliment each other quite well in my setup. I'll report back in a few days when I've had a chance to go out and test the 17-40 outdoors.
Congrats, Enzo. I really liked the 17-40 when I tried it last weekend. The AF is clearly faster and quieter than my Tamron and the colors do seem a bit more saturated. It got me thinking about the 16-35 f2.8 since the one thing that Tamron had over the 17-40 was shutter speed in low light.
Yeah, the 16-35 looks really nice and would be an even better match with the tamron, but I don't have the funds for that. My next purchase would most likely be a speedlite 550ex or 580ex along with a softbox of some sort. Or possibly upgrading my sigma 70-200 to a Canon 70-200 L IS. That won't happen anytime soon though.
Yes, I don't have the funds for the 16-35 2.8 either.... someday.... A cheaper alternative is the Tamron 17-35 f2.8 since it is 2.8 until the low 20s. You could focus at <20 then zoom in before taking the shot.
2.8 lenses make sense when you move up to a 20D or similar bodies. the 20D has 3x the focusing precision when used with f2.8 or wider lenses. I read reviews of the 16-35 where 20D users cited a big improvement in focus accuracy when they switched from a 17-40 to the 16-35. I don't think us 350D users would notice a difference.
Enjoy your 17-40! Its a great lens. Comparing it with my 17-85 IS and Tamron 28-75 really got me thinking.
Good to see so many positive comments about the 17-40.
I'm seriously considering it to replace the kit lens on my 350D soon too. I allready have the 50 f/1.8 prime so together I think they'll suit me. I mainly do outdoor/landscape photography anyway.
