Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 vs Canon 17-40mm f/4L: image quality and distortion
Asked 9/26/2012
3 views
2 answers
0
How does the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 compare with the Canon 17-40mm f/4L for image quality and distortion? I’m mainly interested in overall optical quality, including sharpness, blur/aberrations, and how well each lens controls distortion/straight lines. My likely uses are group portraits, landscapes with a nearby subject, and some architecture photography. If it matters, I’m also open to whether one makes more sense on crop sensor vs full frame.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
3
Well I would say that based on this link, performance at f/4 is similar for both as far as sharpness goes. Distortion can be compared at this link.
I'm not sure what you mean by blur, if you are talking about bokeh, neither of these are going to be great. You really need a prime, and even for that a lens this wide isn't going to produce much out of focus.
Really you are comparing apples to oranges here. A better comparison is the Tamron against the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. The Canon 17-40 is full frame compatible, f/4, without stabilization(same as Tamron), and a Canon L lens that comes with its associated durability(construction, sealing, etc).
So do you want/need image stabilization? Do you want/need f/2.8? You need to make these decisions as well as a price to determine what is best for you.
Originally by user4892. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user4892
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
These lenses serve slightly different purposes, so the “better” choice depends on your camera and priorities.
From the community feedback, sharpness around f/4 is broadly similar. For distortion, you’ll want to compare test charts/reviews directly, especially if architecture is important.
Key differences:
- Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8: gives you a full extra stop, which can be more useful for indoor/group work or lower light.
- Canon 17-40mm f/4L: offers better build quality and durability, and it’s a full-frame compatible L lens.
- Neither lens is likely to give especially strong background blur at these wide focal lengths; if by “blur” you mean bokeh, a wider-aperture prime is usually better.
Also, body matters:
- On a crop-sensor camera, several replies suggest the more natural Canon comparison is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, not the 17-40mm.
- On full frame, the 17-40mm makes more sense because it’s designed for that format, while the Tamron 17-50 is a crop-oriented lens.
So: choose the Tamron if you want f/2.8 and lower-light flexibility; choose the Canon 17-40L if you want stronger build and full-frame compatibility.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Canon 5D classic vs 7D for landscapes and portraits: which gives better image quality?
Is upgrading from a Canon EOS 350D to a 550D a noticeable image-quality improvement?
Tamron vs Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 stabilized zoom for Nikon D7100: key differences?
Which lenses should I keep when moving from Canon APS-C to full frame?
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC vs non-VC: is stabilization worth it, and are they upgrades over an 18-55mm kit lens?