Tamron 17-50 2.8 for Nikon

[jlykins]

I was in the market for a 17-50 2.8 but I really didn't want to spend the money on the Nikon. So after reading so many good reviews on the Tamron, I went ahead and purchased it. I have to tell you all that it is a nice lens. It AF quickly, the IQ is really nice, and it feels really rugged. I've had it for about a week now, and what few photos I took with it, turned out great! The only negative that I have for it is the lack of a clutch on the focus ring. You have to actually switch it to MF to do any manual adjustment. To Tamrons defense however they did a nice job of placing, and designing the AF/MF switch so that you can easily switch it without taking your hand off of the lens while shooting. I know there are some Canon guys on here that like it, but are there any other Nikon guys that have this lens? How do you like it?

 

[Samriel]

I've had it for almost a year now, and I feel it's a really good lens for the price. The IQ is good at F2.8, and excellent from F4 and on. I took a lot of wonderful photographs with it, and am really satisfied with it.
I sometimes have the problem that the lens mount contact doesn't connect properly, and I get an error message in the aperture display. Turning the camera off and on solves it, but even after I cleaned the contacts the problem never really goes completely away. Doesn't happen too often though, so it doesn't bother too much. Also, vignetting is sometimes an issue at F2.8, but that isn't any better on the Nikon or Sigma either.

All in all, I never had any regrets about getting this lens. Can recommend it to all those who are on budget and need a really good lens.

 

[JerryPH]

Oops... a little more research would have found for you the fact that last year, 3 major photography magazines did shootouts with the Nikkor 17-55, Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 18-50 HSM.

The Sigma cleaned house 3 times out of 3. It was not by a landslide, but it was unanimous for all 3 magazines. On top of that, the Sigma has a 3:1 macro. Granted its not a 1:1, but it does mean that I am assured of being able to get the lens an inch away from my subject, if needed, and still have it be able to focus. That is something the others do not even offer.

 

[jlykins]

You know I heard that about the IQ but I haven't done any shots to verify it. So far I'm really happy with it. I'll let you know what I think after my next wedding. I'll be using it pretty much the whole time.

 

[jlykins]

Oops... a little more research would have found for you the fact that last year, 3 major photography magazines did shootouts with the Nikkor 17-55, Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 18-50 HSM.

The Sigma cleaned house 3 times out of 3. It was not by a landslide, but it was unanimous for all 3 magazines. On top of that, the Sigma has a 3:1 macro. Granted its not a 1:1, but it does mean that I am assured of being able to get the lens an inch away from my subject, if needed, and still have it be able to focus. That is something the others do not even offer.

Does the Sigma have an internal AF motor? The Tamron does, which makes it really fast at AF. I'm sure I would have been happy with the Sigma as well, I just got a smokin deal on it $400, plus they threw in a free Hoya multicoated UV filter.

 

[JerryPH]

Does the Sigma have an internal AF motor?

Yes, that is what the HSM stands for.

The Tamron does, which makes it really fast at AF. I'm sure I would have been happy with the Sigma as well, I just got a smokin deal on it $400, plus they threw in a free Hoya multicoated UV filter.

$365 at THIS location. Known good vendor too. That is without the filter, though.

 

[bhop]

Not trying to threadjack, but how much of a difference is there between 17 and 18mm? Would that be noticeable? I have been using my kit lens from the d70 (17-80mm af-s f/3.5-5) but want to replace it with something faster. I like to use the wide end, which is why I ask. If moving up to 18mm would be a noticeable difference then that doesn't thrill me (i'm guessing it won't really).

 

[jlykins]

1mm isn't going to make a difference. Not a noticable one at least.

 

[Stranger]

the 1mm is nothing a step back wont fix


I also have the Promaster 17-50 2.8 (same thing as the tamron) and i love this lens. No experience with the sigma but I have heard good things. I am very thrilled with mine though. I've had it maybe a month?

 

[JerryPH]

If moving up to 18mm would be a noticeable difference then that doesn't thrill me (i'm guessing it won't really).

One would have to be truly anal to have 1-2 mm affect them negatively.

What would be more noticeable is above average sharpness, lack of distortion, little to no vignetting and a constant F/2.8 aperture and a fast autofocus... those are are the important differences.

 

[jlykins]

One would have to be truly anal to have 1-2 mm affect them negatively.

What would be more noticeable is above average sharpness, lack of distortion, little to no vignetting and a constant F/2.8 aperture and a fast autofocus... those are are the important differences.

wait wait wait.... What are you doing with a DX lens? You're not still shooting that D200 are you?

 

[bhop]

One would have to be truly anal to have 1-2 mm affect them negatively.

What would be more noticeable is above average sharpness, lack of distortion, little to no vignetting and a constant F/2.8 aperture and a fast autofocus... those are are the important differences.

Yeah, i'm not really that anal... was just wondering if it was even noticeable

 

[Kegger]

I use this lens quite often, and am very impressed with the overall quality, sharpness, and build of the lens.

Example

 

[bhop]

DUH!!! I just realized that I mixed up the numbers in my previous post.. the Nikon lens I own is the 18-70.. (not 17-80) so yeah, that pretty much makes my whole original question irrelevant.. *doh*

 

[jlykins]

what's funny is that none of us caught it either...