When it comes to wide-angle lenses for full-frame cameras, the Tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di OSD and Canon EF 16-35mm F/4L IS USM are two popular options that often find themselves in direct competition. As a professional photographer who has extensively used both lenses, I can tell you that choosing between them isn’t just about specs—it’s about finding the right tool for your specific photography needs and budget. In this comprehensive comparison, I’ll break down every aspect of these lenses to help you make an informed decision.
Overview of Both Lenses
Tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di OSD
The Tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di OSD is a relatively recent addition to Tamron’s lineup, designed as a more affordable alternative to Canon’s L-series wide-angle zoom. I discovered this lens when I was looking for a wide-angle solution that wouldn’t break the bank but still deliver professional results.
Key features:
- Focal length: 17-35mm
- Aperture range: F/2.8-4
- Optical stabilization: None
- Weather sealing: Basic moisture-resistant construction
- Filter size: 77mm
- Weight: 460g (16.2 oz)
- Price point: Mid-range
Canon EF 16-35mm F/4L IS USM
The Canon EF 16-35mm F/4L IS USM is part of Canon’s prestigious L-series, known for excellent build quality and optical performance. I’ve been using this lens for several years on my Canon bodies, and it has rarely disappointed me in the field.
Key features:
- Focal length: 16-35mm
- Aperture range: F/4 constant
- Optical stabilization: Yes, up to 4 stops
- Weather sealing: Full weather sealing
- Filter size: 77mm
- Weight: 615g (21.7 oz)
- Price point: Premium
Detailed Specification Comparison
Let’s dive deeper into how these lenses stack up against each other in terms of specifications:
| Specification | Tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 | Canon 16-35mm F/4L |
|---|---|---|
| Focal Range | 17-35mm | 16-35mm |
| Maximum Aperture | F/2.8-4 (variable) | F/4 (constant) |
| Minimum Aperture | F/22 | F/22 |
| Optical Elements | 15 elements in 10 groups | 16 elements in 12 groups |
| Special Elements | 1 LD, 1 GM, 1 aspherical | 3 aspherical, 2 UD |
| Diaphragm Blades | 7 | 9 |
| Minimum Focus Distance | 0.28m (11.02″) | 0.28m (11.02″) |
| Maximum Magnification | 1:4.7 | 1:3.3 |
| Optical Stabilization | No | Yes (4 stops) |
| Weather Sealing | Basic moisture-resistant | Full weather sealing |
| Filter Size | 77mm | 77mm |
| Dimensions | 83.6 x 99mm (3.3 x 3.9″) | 82.6 x 112.8mm (3.25 x 4.44″) |
| Weight | 460g (16.2 oz) | 615g (21.7 oz) |
| Mount | Canon EF | Canon EF |
Build Quality and Design Comparison
Tamron 17-35mm Build Quality
When I first picked up the Tamron 17-35mm, I was pleasantly surprised by its build quality. While it doesn’t match the premium feel of Canon’s L-series, it’s well-constructed with a metal mount and some weather sealing. The barrel is made of high-quality plastic that feels durable in hand.
The zoom ring is smooth with just the right amount of resistance, and the focus ring is adequately sized for manual focusing. I’ve used this lens in light rain without any issues, but I wouldn’t trust it in heavy downpours or extreme conditions like I would with the Canon.
One thing I noticed during my field testing is that the Tamron extends significantly when zooming to 35mm, which might be a concern for dust and moisture ingress over time.
Canon 16-35mm F/4L Build Quality
The Canon 16-35mm F/4L exhibits the exceptional build quality we’ve come to expect from L-series lenses. The magnesium alloy construction feels substantial and professional, with full weather sealing that includes gaskets at every joint and mount.
I’ve taken this lens on numerous outdoor shoots in challenging conditions—from dusty deserts to rainy coastal environments—and it has never failed me. The zoom and focus rings operate with precision, and the lens maintains a constant length throughout the zoom range, which I appreciate when working in dusty environments.
The Canon also features a dedicated AF/MF switch and image stabilization switch, which are conveniently placed and easy to operate even when looking through the viewfinder.
Image Quality Comparison
Sharpness
When it comes to sharpness, both lenses perform admirably, but with some differences:
Tamron 17-35mm:
- Center sharpness is excellent from wide open at all focal lengths
- Corner sharpness is good at 17mm but improves significantly when stopped down to F/5.6
- At 35mm, sharpness across the frame is very good even at F/4
- I discovered that the sweet spot for this lens is around F/5.6-F/8, where it delivers tack-sharp results from corner to corner
Canon 16-35mm F/4L:
- Exceptional center sharpness wide open at all focal lengths
- Corner sharpness is very good at 16mm and becomes excellent when stopped down to F/5.6
- At 35mm, the lens delivers outstanding sharpness across the frame even at F/4
- The Canon maintains consistent sharpness throughout the zoom range, with the sweet spot being F/5.6-F/11
In my side-by-side tests, I found that the Canon has a slight edge in corner-to-corner sharpness, especially at wider apertures. However, when both lenses are stopped down to F/8, the differences become minimal and difficult to discern in real-world shooting.
Chromatic Aberration
Chromatic aberration (CA) is a common issue with wide-angle lenses, and both these lenses handle it reasonably well:
Tamron 17-35mm:
- Shows moderate lateral CA at 17mm, especially in high-contrast situations
- Longitudinal CA is well-controlled but visible at wider apertures
- CA reduces significantly when stopped down to F/5.6 or smaller
Canon 16-35mm F/4L:
- Lateral CA is well-controlled at all focal lengths
- Longitudinal CA is minimal and rarely noticeable in real-world images
- Canon’s advanced lens elements and coatings do an excellent job of suppressing CA
In my experience shooting high-contrast scenes with both lenses, the Canon clearly outperforms the Tamron in controlling chromatic aberration, particularly at the wider end of the focal range.
Distortion
Wide-angle lenses are prone to distortion, and these two are no exception:
Tamron 17-35mm:
- Exhibits noticeable barrel distortion at 17mm (approximately 3%)
- Distortion transitions to mild pincushion at 35mm
- Distortion is fairly consistent across copies, making it easy to correct in post-processing
Canon 16-35mm F/4L:
- Shows moderate barrel distortion at 16mm (approximately 2.5%)
- Minimal distortion at 35mm
- Distortion profile is well-documented and easily corrected in post-processing
Both lenses exhibit distortion typical of their class, but the Canon’s distortion is slightly less pronounced and more uniform across the frame. In practice, I find that both are easily correctable in Lightroom or similar software.
Vignetting
Vignetting is another characteristic to consider when comparing these lenses:
Tamron 17-35mm:
- Noticeable vignetting at 17mm F/2.8, approximately 2.5 stops
- Vignetting reduces significantly when stopped down to F/5.6
- At 35mm F/4, vignetting is mild and mostly unnoticeable in real-world images
Canon 16-35mm F/4L:
- Moderate vignetting at 16mm F/4, approximately 1.8 stops
- Vignetting is well-controlled when stopped down to F/5.6
- At 35mm F/4, vignetting is minimal and barely noticeable
The Canon handles vignetting better than the Tamron, particularly at the wide end. However, I find that vignetting can often be used creatively in wide-angle photography, and both lenses offer acceptable performance in this regard.
Flare and Ghosting
Shooting into the sun or other bright light sources can reveal a lot about a lens’s coating quality:
Tamron 17-35mm:
- Shows moderate to severe flare when shooting directly into strong light sources
- Ghosting is visible in high-contrast backlit situations
- The included lens hood helps but doesn’t completely eliminate the issue
Canon 16-35mm F/4L:
- Excellent flare control, even when shooting directly into the sun
- Minimal ghosting in challenging lighting conditions
- The included petal-shaped lens hood is very effective at reducing flare
In my landscape photography work, I often shoot into the sun, and the Canon’s superior flare control has saved many shots that would have been unusable with the Tamron. If you frequently shoot in backlit conditions, this is a significant advantage for the Canon.
Performance in Different Shooting Scenarios
Landscape Photography
As a landscape photographer, I’ve put both lenses through their paces in various outdoor environments:
Tamron 17-35mm:
- The 17mm wide end is sufficiently wide for most landscape scenes
- Good sharpness across the frame when stopped down to F/8-F/11
- The variable aperture isn’t a significant issue for landscape work, where you typically shoot at smaller apertures
- Lack of image stabilization can be problematic for handheld shots in low light or for focus stacking
Canon 16-35mm F/4L:
- The extra millimeter at 16mm makes a noticeable difference in expansive scenes
- Excellent sharpness across the frame even at F/8
- The constant F/4 aperture provides consistent exposure when zooming
- Image stabilization is invaluable for handheld shots in low light and for focus stacking
For landscape photography, I personally prefer the Canon for its wider field of view, superior flare control, and image stabilization. However, if you’re on a budget and primarily use a tripod, the Tamron is a capable alternative.
Architecture Photography
When shooting architecture, distortion control and sharpness are paramount:
Tamron 17-35mm:
- Good sharpness for capturing architectural details
- Distortion is predictable and easily corrected in post-processing
- The 17mm focal length is adequate for most interior and exterior architectural shots
Canon 16-35mm F/4L:
- Excellent sharpness for fine architectural details
- Slightly better distortion control, especially at the wide end
- The 16mm focal length provides a wider perspective for tight interior spaces
For architectural work, both lenses perform well, but I find the Canon’s slightly wider field of view and better distortion control give it an edge, especially when shooting in confined spaces.
Event Photography
Event photography requires versatility, good low-light performance, and reliability:
Tamron 17-35mm:
- The F/2.8 aperture at 17mm is beneficial in low-light situations
- Lighter weight makes it comfortable to carry during long events
- Autofocus is generally reliable but can hunt in very low light
Canon 16-35mm F/4L:
- The constant F/4 aperture provides consistent exposure when zooming
- Image stabilization is invaluable for handheld shots in dim venues
- Superior autofocus performance in challenging lighting conditions
- Better build quality inspires confidence during demanding events
For event photography, I’ve found the Canon to be the more reliable choice, thanks to its image stabilization, consistent aperture, and superior autofocus. However, if you’re shooting events in well-lit venues and want to save money, the Tamron is a viable option.
Also Read: Canon 7D vs 70D
Astrophotography
Astrophotography demands excellent wide-open performance and minimal coma:
Tamron 17-35mm:
- The F/2.8 aperture at 17mm is advantageous for capturing more light
- Shows noticeable coma in the corners at wide apertures
- Stars in the center are reasonably sharp, but corner performance is lacking
Canon 16-35mm F/4L:
- The F/4 aperture requires longer exposures or higher ISO settings
- Better control of coma, especially when stopped down to F/5.6
- More consistent star rendering across the frame
For serious astrophotography work, neither lens is ideal, but the Canon’s better coma control gives it an advantage. If you’re primarily interested in astrophotography, you might want to consider specialized lenses like the Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 or the Sigma 14mm F/1.8.
Autofocus Performance
Autofocus performance can make or break a lens, especially for action or event photography:
Tamron 17-35mm:
- Uses Tamron’s OSD (Optimized Silent Drive) autofocus motor
- Generally quiet and fast enough for most situations
- Can occasionally hunt in low light or low-contrast situations
- No focus distance scale, which can be problematic for manual focusing techniques
Canon 16-35mm F/4L:
- Uses Canon’s ring-type USM (Ultrasonic Motor) autofocus system
- Fast, accurate, and virtually silent in operation
- Excellent low-light performance with minimal hunting
- Includes a focus distance scale and full-time manual focus override
In my experience, the Canon’s autofocus system is noticeably superior, especially in challenging lighting conditions. The ability to manually adjust focus without switching to MF mode is also a significant advantage for certain shooting techniques.
Value for Money Analysis
Price is often a deciding factor when choosing between lenses, and there’s a significant difference between these two:
Tamron 17-35mm:
- Typically priced around $499-$599
- Offers excellent value for money, providing 80-90% of the Canon’s performance at roughly half the price
- Good option for photographers on a budget or those who don’t need the absolute best performance
Canon 16-35mm F/4L:
- Typically priced around $999-$1099
- Premium price reflects the build quality, optical performance, and features
- Better long-term investment with higher resale value
- Ideal for professionals or enthusiasts who demand the best performance
When considering value for money, I believe the Tamron is the clear winner if you’re on a budget. However, if you can afford the Canon, the additional features and performance justify the higher price, especially for professional use.
Also Read: Nikon D500 vs D850
Who Should Buy Which Lens?
Tamron 17-35mm is Ideal For:
- Budget-conscious photographers who want wide-angle capabilities
- Hobbyists and enthusiasts who don’t shoot in extreme conditions
- Photographers who primarily use a tripod for landscape work
- Those who prioritize weight savings over absolute performance
- Photographers who can accept some compromises in exchange for significant savings
Canon 16-35mm F/4L is Ideal For:
- Professional photographers who need reliable performance in all conditions
- Landscape photographers who frequently shoot handheld
- Event photographers who need consistent performance and image stabilization
- Those who shoot in challenging lighting conditions or backlit situations
- Photographers who want the best possible image quality and are willing to pay for it
Final Verdict
After extensively using both lenses in various shooting scenarios, I can confidently say that both the Tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 and the Canon 16-35mm F/4L are excellent wide-angle zooms that serve different purposes and budgets.
The Tamron 17-35mm is an impressive budget-friendly option that delivers surprisingly good performance for its price point. If you’re just starting out in wide-angle photography or working with a limited budget, this lens offers tremendous value and will serve you well in most situations.
The Canon 16-35mm F/4L, on the other hand, is a professional-grade lens that justifies its premium price with superior build quality, better optical performance, and valuable features like image stabilization. If you’re a professional photographer or serious enthusiast who demands the best, the Canon is worth the investment.
Ultimately, the choice between these two lenses comes down to your specific needs, shooting style, and budget. Both lenses are capable of producing stunning images in the right hands, so you can’t go wrong with either choice.
FAQ
Is the Tamron 17-35mm weather sealed?
The Tamron 17-35mm features basic moisture-resistant construction, but it doesn’t have the comprehensive weather sealing of Canon’s L-series lenses. It can handle light rain and moisture, but I wouldn’t recommend using it in heavy downpours or extreme conditions.
Does the Canon 16-35mm F/4L have image stabilization?
Yes, the Canon 16-35mm F/4L features Canon’s Image Stabilizer technology, which provides up to 4 stops of shake correction. This is incredibly useful for handheld shooting in low light and for techniques like focus stacking.
Which lens is sharper?
While both lenses are sharp, the Canon 16-35mm F/4L generally has an edge, especially in the corners and at wider apertures. When both lenses are stopped down to F/8, the differences become minimal and difficult to discern in real-world shooting.
Can I use these lenses on APS-C cameras?
Yes, both lenses can be used on APS-C Canon cameras, but they’ll have a narrower field of view due to the crop factor. On an APS-C camera, the Tamron would effectively be a 27-56mm lens, and the Canon would be a 25.6-56mm lens.
Is the Tamron 17-35mm good for astrophotography?
The Tamron 17-35mm can be used for astrophotography, especially at its F/2.8 aperture, but it does show noticeable coma in the corners at wide apertures. If astrophotography is your primary focus, you might want to consider specialized lenses designed specifically for that purpose.
Pro Photography Tips
To get the most out of your wide-angle lens, consider these professional tips:
- Use a tripod for maximum sharpness: Even with image stabilization, a tripod will always yield sharper results, especially at smaller apertures.
- Focus stacking for landscape photography: For maximum depth of field in landscape images, take multiple shots at different focus points and blend them in post-processing.
- Use a polarizing filter: A circular polarizer can enhance colors and reduce reflections in landscape and architectural photography.
- Watch your composition: Wide-angle lenses include a lot in the frame, so pay extra attention to your composition to avoid cluttered images.
- Embrace the foreground: Wide-angle lenses exaggerate perspective, so include interesting foreground elements to create depth in your images.
- Shoot in RAW: This gives you maximum flexibility in post-processing, especially for correcting distortion and chromatic aberration.
- Clean your lens regularly: Wide-angle lenses are more susceptible to flare and ghosting from dust and smudges, so keep the front element clean.