In all fairness, the review you point to isn't a comparison between the Canon and the Tamron, but between the Canon and a Zeiss. There are plenty of comparisons between them on the net, however:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36283 http://nododo.home.comcast.net/ultrawide/index.html http://www.whichlens.com/index.php?blog=5&title=canon_17_40mm_f_4l_usm_vs_si gma_17_35mm&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 On Fred Miranda, the Canon is the rated better by readers than the original 17-35mm and equal to the newer version. Since the Tamron is a stop faster at most focal lengths, I'm not sure it's fair to compare it stopped down to the Canon wide open, but comparing the lenses equally stopped down (1,2 or 3 stops), the Canon lens is sharper or equal in most tests. Yes, the Tamron is sharper stopped down to f/4 than the Canon wide open at 17mm, but we really would need to compare the 17-35 to the 16-35 to have apples to apples. I can say that my 16-35 is sharper than my 17-40, but who knows how my samples compare to someone else's samples. As with most things, with different people and lenses, you get different opinions. I'll keep my Canon. Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: EOS 17-40L test > > For those that want a concrete example of 17-40L compared to > another lens check out: > > http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/1740.html > > This guy tried 2 different 17-40L lenses, neither of which > was very sharp (as I stated in a previous post). > > I'll keep my Tamron. :-) * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
