Tamron 17-50 2.8 for Nikon

[Kegger]

This is true, all these Nikon junkies and no one spotted the typo.

We are a sad group of individuals, cuz most of us would have immediately corrected a noob, lol.

 

[jlykins]

You know why right, most of us don't actually read the words, we just read the sentence...

 

[tenlientl]

I love mine. It was a huge imporvment from my Nikkor 18-105mm VR.

Although I still like my 50mm, I'd leave my 17-50mm on alwyas for those random times I want to take pictures. My only beef is the focus/zoom rings. I wish it was vice versa. I got used to zooming with the far ring, and focusing with the closest one.

 

[iflynething]

Yes, that is what the HSM stands for.



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

''

Thanks JERRY! You link almost made me just buy the Sigma.......

~Michael~

 

[jlykins]

Jerry's the man... lol

 

[iflynething]

Yeah, he sure is I was looking over threads about the Sigma 18-50 and thought it was interesting when we was still talking about the D200 and D300 and how we should just wait for th D400 to come out. This was obviously before the D700 and 3 came out.

I really about bought that lens, though

~Michael~

 

[NateS]

Even IF the Sigma is sharper, the Sigma has a lot more sample variation than the Tamron....so your chances of getting a sharp copy are much larger with the Tamron.

After browsing hundreds of pictures of both the Sigma and Tamron on flickr, the pictures I saw wide open were sharper 99% of the time with the Tamron. Now, that obviously could be due to post processing or shooting error, but it was consistently better on the Tamron shots I saw. In any case, it was close, but due to the back/front focusing problems with a lot of the Sigmas, I found the Tamron to be the better choice.

 

[iflynething]

It is that difficult to just say this was a bad copy and have an exchange and get another one? If it's truly a "bad" copy?

~Michael~

 

[NateS]

It is that difficult to just say this was a bad copy and have an exchange and get another one? If it's truly a "bad" copy?

~Michael~

Yes....on a $400 purchase, it doesn't make sense to me to buy something with the knowledge that you may have to send it back for calibration the day you get it. Would you buy a car knowing that possibly the day you take it home, there's a good chance you'll have to turn around and take the car right back in for service and go without the car for a week or two? If you were deciding between 2 cars that were pretty much equal in all other areas, would this not play into your decision making any? It sure would with my decision.

Not only that, but regardless of what magazine did the test, my eyes don't lie. Comparing pictures wide open at f2.8 between them, the Tamron always looks sharper to me. I looked at probably 500 pictures of each in their prespective flickr group and I consistently noticed sharper pictures from the Tamron. Sigma may have came out on top in a magazine test, but in the real world the Tamron looks sharper to me.

 

[iflynething]

...but in the real world...

That's what matters and how sometimes magazines can be misleading

~Michael~

 

[JustAnEngineer]

Of course, this is on a Canon, but:
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens Review

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Lens is very, very similar to the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens....

The differences? The Sigma is less resistant to flare. The Sigma shows more CA. The Tamron is noticeably wider (17mm vs. 18mm.... The Tamron focuses faster, the Sigma focuses more quietly. The Tamron focuses much more accurately - My keeper rate is far higher with the Tamron. My Sigma has a weak left side - For sharpness, the Tamron beats the Sigma easily on the left side, but the Sigma is slightly better on the right. The Sigma rings rotate the Canon direction, the Tamron rings rotate the opposite direction....