The Tamron 20-40 is much better than the canon 17-40 for B and C zone sharpness, color, and the 3D look. The corners also sharpen up much sooner, and it has a very usable f/2.8 aperture across the zoom range. The lens originally sold for about $800US, but can now be had for cheap. My copy is the updated version with the new outer style. If you plan to buy, look for the later model. It is very well built and has great feeling manual controls.
What\'s the use in comparing one Tamron to another? Like any brand of lens, each model may perform completely different. Heck, even a specific model, has sample variation. The Canon 17-40 being a strong case in point. BTW, I have also tried the Tokina 20-35 in both the /2.8 and /3.5-4.5 varieties. They are no match for the 20-40.
At 20mm the Tamron is better than all of the 20-21mm primes I have tried, except the very best. It is better than a all four copies of the 21/3.5, my excellent copy of the Nikon 20/4, and for most parts even the Zuiko 21/2\'s I\'ve had. Only the Nikon 12-24 does better. I\'m sure the Zeiss 21/2.8 would be better as well, but I don\'t know of any other. In fact, seeing the results from this lens led me to sell my Nikon 12-24. It\'s that good
Thanks for the comments on my pics. They were taken with a Kodak SLR/n (14MP full frame, with no AA filter) in RAW, very little PP on all. The last was converted in BW in PP. All show the full frame.
Apr 30, 2009 at 02:43 PM
Previous versions of pdmphoto's message #7022639 « Tamron 20-40mm »
