Sell the MacBook for an L Lens and Mac Mini

[Patriks7]

So once you get that beauty lens let us (or at least me since I want to buy the same 😛) how it works for you!

 

[dr.devious]

Ok let me muddy the water on this a little...I was at Best Buy picking up a DVD and they had a Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8 for $325 on clearance after my RZ Coupon. It is brand new. Would this be a better buy than the 17-40L?

 

[gkarris]

Ok let me muddy the water on this a little...I was at Best Buy picking up a DVD and they had a Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8 for $325 on clearance after my RZ Coupon. It is brand new. Would this be a better buy than the 17-40L?

I don't know much about the Tamrons/Sigmas/Tokinas, but I think the only third parties that beat Canon L is Zeiss (which I've used) and Leica... 😱

 

[toxic]

Ok let me muddy the water on this a little...I was at Best Buy picking up a DVD and they had a Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8 for $325 on clearance after my RZ Coupon. It is brand new. Would this be a better buy than the 17-40L?

the Tamron is a great lens, if you don't mind slower (and not-silent) AF. i would choose it over the 17-40 - faster (if you need speed), better focal length range, slightly sharper (particularly on the long end), and cheaper.

 

[luminosity]

I don't think there is such a thing as a Tamron 17-55. It's 17-50, I believe.

 

[dr.devious]

I don't think there is such a thing as a Tamron 17-55. It's 17-50, I believe.

I stand corrected...you are right. I mis-typed it.

 

[dr.devious]

the Tamron is a great lens, if you don't mind slower (and not-silent) AF. i would choose it over the 17-40 - faster (if you need speed), better focal length range, slightly sharper (particularly on the long end), and cheaper.

I went ahead and I bought it since Best Buy has 30 days return policy. I used both my certificates and a coupon, dropping it to $275!. The lens seems very sharp and I like the f/2.8. Since I have been using the 28-135 and my 70-200, both with USM, I was initially bothered by the noise of the AF, but it is quieter than my 50mm without USM. I think I am going to return the 17-40 in favor of this lens.

 

[luminosity]

The Tamron 17-50 is generally well regarded. The only real trouble spots are quality control and construction, along with the 5mm of range you're losing.

My Nikon 17-55 easily survived an accidental meeting with a brick wall that probably would have severely damaged the Tamron, and probably the Canon as well (mainly because the Canon 17-55 is not an L lens, and is not so well put together as the Nikon, which you do pay for).

 

[dr.devious]

The Tamron 17-50 is generally well regarded. The only real trouble spots are quality control and construction...

I was concerned initially with this issue as well. I have only ever own Canon lenses, but this Tamron is built considerably better than my 28-135mm kit lens. While it was not as solid as the 17-40L, its solidness surprised me. If there is spotty QC, I think I got a good one.

 

[HBOC]

Sure it is -- it gives you the equivalent angle of view of a 28mm lens on 135 format -- that' s a very workable wide-angle option.

When you get to 21mm and wider, as was suggested, is the realm of ultra-wide -- much more of a speciality lens... not a bad thing, mind you, but not as robust as the 28-65mm he'll get with this lens on a crop-body.

Also a nice future-proof lens -- upgrade to a 5D or the like and you now have an ultra-wide to (very slightly) wide-normal lens.

well i consider it wide angle🙂 I dont think the 16-35mm is considered UWA, bjut i could be wrong.

The tamron is an excellent lens. They used to make a 17-35 or 17-40 a few years ago, that they disco'd. It was an amazing lens, but as with any lens, it is hit and miss (mostly hit) with sharpness.