Nikon 17-55 2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm 2.8: Which wold you buy?

[IgsEMT]

Used them both
In IQ, I think Nikon is a bit better. But that bit isn't noticeable to an average viewer, especially when you don't have two image side-by-side. CR is very similar in both and minimal in both, sharpness (Nikon is a bit sharper). Focusing, Nikon is a bit faster then the Tamron.
As a walk around lens for family events, Tamron is more then enough. Of course, when you (and I don't mean you personally) go on a forum and ask which lens do I need to shoot events/weddings, etc - it strikes a nerve w/ me since asking a Q as such means one shouldn't be anywhere near a wedding, other then a guest. (but its a different story and not going to get into it )
One of the studios I work for, the guy uses Tamron 17-50 as his primary on Fuji S5. When compared to the same shot my D300s w/ 17-55 (at the same settings and no flash), I provided better overall image - now if that was the lens alone or lens/body combo I can't say.
Another issue, though minor, but still exists is the professional look. Reality is that in the last 10yrs or so, since we entered the digital age, clients began looking at more then the final product. I had never been asked, when was shooting film, what camera I was using, what film, etc etc. My mentor, may he RIP - the same thing. But when digital age began, it was one of those Qs to ask and today more and more clients care which "brand" is used rather then the product in front of them. With that in mind, if you are shooting our family, then Tamron is more then enough, but if you one day will move on to professional market, although your IQ will be amazing, the Tamron/Nikon combo might be looked down upon
Few months ago, I got a call from a colleague, great photographer, was complaining to me that he hired someone else to shoot a job w/ him (600 people wedding, 3 crews, etc etc) I wasn't available that day, and the guy showed up with D7000 and Tamron 17-50. His main issues were #1 professional look (not the person) but the gear and #2 (IQ in the large (16x20 and larger) from that person.
Different note and that topic has been covered here and on other forums with mixed reactions/results, d7000 does do so well in larger prints . As a Nikon user, it is upsetting to hear and actually see.

Good Luck

 

[PapaMatt]

Nikon has it on build quality, a Nikon lens will/should last for years to come. I can not say that about a 3rd party lens. That being said, the Tamron 17-50 sp 2.8 non VC, rocks, as does the 28-75mm. both sharp as the Nikon as far as one can tell with eyes alone.

 

[Mach0]

Nikon has it on build quality, a Nikon lens will/should last for years to come. I can not say that about a 3rd party lens. That being said, the Tamron 17-50 sp 2.8 non VC, rocks, as does the 28-75mm. both sharp as the Nikon as far as one can tell with eyes alone.

Do you have the 28-75 with the built in af motor or the screw drive model ?

 

[PapaMatt]

Nikon has it on build quality, a Nikon lens will/should last for years to come. I can not say that about a 3rd party lens. That being said, the Tamron 17-50 sp 2.8 non VC, rocks, as does the 28-75mm. both sharp as the Nikon as far as one can tell with eyes alone.

Do you have the 28-75 with the built in af motor or the screw drive model ?

It is the screw drive model SP XR di LD aspherical IF Macro model, It will not AF on some Nikons

 

[Mach0]

It is the screw drive model SP XR di LD aspherical IF Macro model, It will not AF on some Nikons

Yea I know. The reason I asked, I have read the one with the af motor sucks lol... Or should I say, not as good

 

[PapaMatt]

wow, I did not realize that until now. anyway I am happy with both Tamrons I have, good enough for my needs.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Nikon for me, extra buck or two for the extra performance

 

[Mach0]

wow, I did not realize that until now. anyway I am happy with both Tamrons I have, good enough for my needs.

Yea. I was trying to find one without much luck so I decided on the nikon 35-70.

 

[PapaMatt]

I think the Tokina 11-16 will match any nikon lens!!

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Used them both
In IQ, I think Nikon is a bit better. But that bit isn't noticeable to an average viewer, especially when you don't have two image side-by-side. CR is very similar in both and minimal in both, sharpness (Nikon is a bit sharper). Focusing, Nikon is a bit faster then the Tamron.
As a walk around lens for family events, Tamron is more then enough. Of course, when you (and I don't mean you personally) go on a forum and ask which lens do I need to shoot events/weddings, etc - it strikes a nerve w/ me since asking a Q as such means one shouldn't be anywhere near a wedding, other then a guest. (but its a different story and not going to get into it )
One of the studios I work for, the guy uses Tamron 17-50 as his primary on Fuji S5. When compared to the same shot my D300s w/ 17-55 (at the same settings and no flash), I provided better overall image - now if that was the lens alone or lens/body combo I can't say.
Another issue, though minor, but still exists is the professional look. Reality is that in the last 10yrs or so, since we entered the digital age, clients began looking at more then the final product. I had never been asked, when was shooting film, what camera I was using, what film, etc etc. My mentor, may he RIP - the same thing. But when digital age began, it was one of those Qs to ask and today more and more clients care which "brand" is used rather then the product in front of them. With that in mind, if you are shooting our family, then Tamron is more then enough, but if you one day will move on to professional market, although your IQ will be amazing, the Tamron/Nikon combo might be looked down upon
Few months ago, I got a call from a colleague, great photographer, was complaining to me that he hired someone else to shoot a job w/ him (600 people wedding, 3 crews, etc etc) I wasn't available that day, and the guy showed up with D7000 and Tamron 17-50. His main issues were #1 professional look (not the person) but the gear and #2 (IQ in the large (16x20 and larger) from that person.
Different note and that topic has been covered here and on other forums with mixed reactions/results, d7000 does do so well in larger prints . As a Nikon user, it is upsetting to hear and actually see.

Good Luck

He looked down on him for using a D7000 and 17-50 2.8? Sorry but in my opinion, your colleague who is a great photographer is not so great a photographer. A D7000 and 17-50 2.8 is a very very very capable combo and this colleague is clearly full of it and not a great photographer.

 

[rgregory1965]

Sigma 17-50 OS....I have this and it is awsome....600.00 from Amazon and it has a 4 year warranty with Sigma because its the EX lens


17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM - Standard Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

 

[IgsEMT]

Used them both
In IQ, I think Nikon is a bit better. But that bit isn't noticeable to an average viewer, especially when you don't have two image side-by-side. CR is very similar in both and minimal in both, sharpness (Nikon is a bit sharper). Focusing, Nikon is a bit faster then the Tamron.
As a walk around lens for family events, Tamron is more then enough. Of course, when you (and I don't mean you personally) go on a forum and ask which lens do I need to shoot events/weddings, etc - it strikes a nerve w/ me since asking a Q as such means one shouldn't be anywhere near a wedding, other then a guest. (but its a different story and not going to get into it )
One of the studios I work for, the guy uses Tamron 17-50 as his primary on Fuji S5. When compared to the same shot my D300s w/ 17-55 (at the same settings and no flash), I provided better overall image - now if that was the lens alone or lens/body combo I can't say.
Another issue, though minor, but still exists is the professional look. Reality is that in the last 10yrs or so, since we entered the digital age, clients began looking at more then the final product. I had never been asked, when was shooting film, what camera I was using, what film, etc etc. My mentor, may he RIP - the same thing. But when digital age began, it was one of those Qs to ask and today more and more clients care which "brand" is used rather then the product in front of them. With that in mind, if you are shooting our family, then Tamron is more then enough, but if you one day will move on to professional market, although your IQ will be amazing, the Tamron/Nikon combo might be looked down upon
Few months ago, I got a call from a colleague, great photographer, was complaining to me that he hired someone else to shoot a job w/ him (600 people wedding, 3 crews, etc etc) I wasn't available that day, and the guy showed up with D7000 and Tamron 17-50. His main issues were #1 professional look (not the person) but the gear and #2 (IQ in the large (16x20 and larger) from that person.
Different note and that topic has been covered here and on other forums with mixed reactions/results, d7000 does do so well in larger prints . As a Nikon user, it is upsetting to hear and actually see.

Good Luck

He looked down on him for using a D7000 and 17-50 2.8? Sorry but in my opinion, your colleague who is a great photographer is not so great a photographer. A D7000 and 17-50 2.8 is a very very very capable combo and this colleague is clearly full of it and not a great photographer.

Personal attitude vs skill are two different things. That being sad, back in film days no-one cared if I was shooting with Hassy or Bronica. Today, clients actually look at the gear you're using and judge you solely based on that. Therefore when studios hire you they actually care what gear you have and how much of it (backups).

 

[PapaMatt]

Personal attitude vs skill are two different things. That being sad, back in film days no-one cared if I was shooting with Hassy or Bronica. Today, clients actually look at the gear you're using and judge you solely based on that. Therefore when studios hire you they actually care what gear you have and how much of it (backups).

------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------

I feel I must disagree with you. All the people I new did care what equipment you were using back in the film days, nothing has changed over the years, People are still the same, just the technology changed.

 

[IgsEMT]

When I was shooting film, I never had anyone coming up to me and asking me about gear or telling me why one brand was better then the other. Even when digital age began and I was shooting 50film/50digital, still no one came up to me asking me anything about gear. However, in the last 5 years, nearly every event job that I've done and about quarter of my studio sessions - amongst the few questions that clients asked were which brand I was using and if it were full frame or not.

From another thread scroll down about half way
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photographic-discussions/279141-shooting-wedding.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I was writing this, reply I got an email, here's the subject from it. copy/pasted
Hello,
My name is Justin, my fiance and I are looking for photographer to capture our special day on September 1st 2012. Friends of our have used you before and highly recommended you. We have few questions.
What are you rates?
How many pictures do we get?
How many photographers do we get?
What kind of camera are you shooting with?
Do we get a CD with all of the pictures?
How much are the albums?
Do we get to see the pictures on line?
Do you give us raw pictures?

Look forward hearing from you.
Justin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Typical inquiry... does it really matter which brand I'm using? It shouldn't matter as long as my equipment is sturdy enough to handle the stress of a wedding.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

When I was shooting film, I never had anyone coming up to me and asking me about gear or telling me why one brand was better then the other. Even when digital age began and I was shooting 50film/50digital, still no one came up to me asking me anything about gear. However, in the last 5 years, nearly every event job that I've done and about quarter of my studio sessions - amongst the few questions that clients asked were which brand I was using and if it were full frame or not.

From another thread scroll down about half way
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photographic-discussions/279141-shooting-wedding.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I was writing this, reply I got an email, here's the subject from it. copy/pasted
Hello,
My name is Justin, my fiance and I are looking for photographer to capture our special day on September 1st 2012. Friends of our have used you before and highly recommended you. We have few questions.
What are you rates?
How many pictures do we get?
How many photographers do we get?
What kind of camera are you shooting with?
Do we get a CD with all of the pictures?
How much are the albums?
Do we get to see the pictures on line?
Do you give us raw pictures?

Look forward hearing from you.
Justin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Typical inquiry... does it really matter which brand I'm using? It shouldn't matter as long as my equipment is sturdy enough to handle the stress of a wedding.

OK, I see now the point your making and the point your colleague was making and they are clearly valid and interesting points. But by the same token, does the average joe bloggs at a wedding know the difference between a D800 and a D7000? Generally speaking, the minute an average consumer sees a DSLR they think the person is a PRO of some sort. So I still can't see people questioning someone using a D7000, a D7000 may not be a professional camera but it looks and feels pretty professional.