Any Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Shooters Here?

[RichYak]

I'm thinking about picking up a used Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for my Nikon D50 to replace the original 18-55 that came with it. I suspect they'll be for sale with Tamron now selling a new version with stabilization. I've read good things about image quality, not so good things about build quality. I tend to baby my equipment, so that's less of a concern. Comments?

[snowbird1]

I'm thinking about picking up a used Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for my Nikon D50 to replace the original 18-55 that came with it. I suspect they'll be for sale with Tamron now selling a new version with stabilization. I've read good things about image quality, not so good things about build quality. I tend to baby my equipment, so that's less of a concern. Comments?

 

I tested one in a store here and it seemed ok but I read a lot of stuff about inconsistent build quality so I paid more money and went with a Nikon 17-55 2.8 which is a beautiful lens although expensive. One of the reasons I did is the Nikon lens hold their value very well. To be honest I almost bought the Tamron only after testing if first on my camera first hand to ensure I had one of the good ones. It was funny, I was about ready to buy it when I ran into a guy who only buys Nikon lens. He said to me, if you buy that you will always wonder if the Nikon was better so I went home and thought it over and ordered the Nikon online. Of course I had the money for it so that obviously could make the decision easier for me. In the past I have found long-term I ended up buying Nikon over the long run so that also was part of it. This is not to say that that isn't a fine lens and for the money it seemed pretty nice but I am not sure I would buy a used one unless I could test in on my camera body first (just my opinion). Best of luck to you.

[chipmaster]

I'm thinking about picking up a used Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for my Nikon D50 to replace the original 18-55 that came with it. I suspect they'll be for sale with Tamron now selling a new version with stabilization. I've read good things about image quality, not so good things about build quality. I tend to baby my equipment, so that's less of a concern. Comments?

 

I'm a big fan of the Tamrons owing 3; 17-35, 28-75 and 28-300. There are long threads on dpreview debating the value of the 17-55 / 28-75 2.8 Tamrons versus the nikons. Unless you need lightening fast focus, the most durable lens out there, and most importantly the "nikon" label on your lens cap, the Tamrons offer 95% of the IQ ~ 1/5 of the price and > 1/2 less weight.

 

I don't know of any extensive shoot out direct comparisons between the 17-55 2.8s but here is a direct comparison of the 28-75 2.8 versus the 24-70 Nikon. The 17-55 use the same technology so I would expect it to perform similar. Not bad for a $400 lens compared to a 1800+ lens :rolleyes:

http://yank.to/Musings/Nikkor%20vs.%20Tamron/

 

No question the Tamrons give up durability, weather sealing and focus speed. Shoot stopped down to F4 or smaller I doubt you can tell any sharpness difference. People say that the Tamrons have a offset color cast, but personally never have seen anything I didn't like. Wide open on my FX the corners are a bit softer then the Nikon but with about 1000 bucks more in my pocket and a pound less around my neck I got no complaints. It is actually the weight that is the biggest plus for me. :D

 

If you are buying used or new do make sure you can throughly check out the lens. There are many claims of sample sharpness issues, slow or failure to focus in poor lighting. Be sure to thorougly check out the lens wide open, stopped down to f4, f8 and look carefully for IQ uniformity. As you don't have the abilty to set focus offset on the D50 make sure you are happy with focus too. If you get a good copy you'll have a killer lense that really can't be beat at any price. I have had no issues with the claimed bad focus or unsharp lenses. Here is a good read on lens sharpness: http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths

 

Oh, beside my nikon body I do own one nikkor right now, 70-200 2.8 and am going to likely pick up a 200 f2. I shoot sports so simply must have that performance, costs a bundle but here you need it, sigh.

 

Good luck

[pierces]

Here are tests on the two lenses on SLRGear.com. It seems to support chipmaster's assessment of 95% (+) of the performance at a fraction of the cost.

 

Nikon

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/129/cat/13

 

Tamron

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/23

 

All the other comparisons about build quality an durability are valid as well. I went through the same fits of indecision when buying my 70-200 f/2.8. The Sigma was 95% of the performance for 40% of the price and I went with it. No regrets. I'm know for a fact that the Sony focuses faster and it sharper at all settings, but not 2½x sharper or faster and the money left over paid for my 11-18 ultra-wide.

 

If the last ounce of performance if worth it to you and you have the cash (I didn't at the time I bought the Sigma or that 5% may have convinced me), go for the Nikkor. I have accepted the fact that my next couple of lenses will each cost more than my camera did, but have a good working set of lenses now and can wait and save my money for the dream lenses.

 

As I tell my Wonderful Wife...it's cheaper than racing cars! (You can fill in your own expensive alternative hobby. ;))

 

Dave

[RichYak]

You guys are the best, thanks. I could always stick with my Nikkor 18-55 kit lens, which is light as a feather and still performs like a champ, but I wouldn't mind faster glass and something I can throw a filter on. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 uses same size filter step-up ring as I already have, so that's a plus. The Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is definitely more lens than I need (or would like to carry).

 

All this comes about because I'm planning on doing Galapagos next year. I plan on bringing the D50, Nikkor 70-300 VR, the Tamron we're discussing or equivalent, and a Canon P&S w/ underwater housing. As of now (I have 11 months to change my mind repeatedly), the Sigma 10-20, Sigma 18-200 OS, and flash are staying home. I've read that they don't let you use fill flash on the excursions.

 

Thanks again.

[snowbird1]

You guys are the best, thanks. I could always stick with my Nikkor 18-55 kit lens, which is light as a feather and still performs like a champ, but I wouldn't mind faster glass and something I can throw a filter on. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 uses same size filter step-up ring as I already have, so that's a plus. The Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is definitely more lens than I need (or would like to carry).

 

All this comes about because I'm planning on doing Galapagos next year. I plan on bringing the D50, Nikkor 70-300 VR, the Tamron we're discussing or equivalent, and a Canon P&S w/ underwater housing. As of now (I have 11 months to change my mind repeatedly), the Sigma 10-20, Sigma 18-200 OS, and flash are staying home. I've read that they don't let you use fill flash on the excursions.

 

Thanks again.

 

Best of luck and you are going to where I hope to go in 2011. You have received good advice here and again to be clear I did say the Tandberg was a good lens for the $. I just went with the Nikon for my own reasons and the resale value in addition to that I got a great price on the one I bought.

[RichYak]

Took a shot and bought one on an eBay auction. Just gave it a quick ride and it's a pretty nice lens so far. I got lucky I guess.

[RichYak]

Right out of the camera resized by Flickr. 800 ISO, pop-up flash, f/3.5, 1/30 sec handheld. Not shabby at all. Happy Holidays everybody!