Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or 28-75 f2.8 for Nikon?

[Illah]

So my quest for a fast, versatile lens has been narrowed down to these two. Both are f2.8 all the way through, both review pretty well, so it's really more a matter of do I need the wide side or the tele side? While I work that out, I was wondering if anyone here has any opinions on these lenses.

FYI - street prices for the 28-75 are about $330 and the 17-50 are about $425, so that's another influencing factor...

17-50: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28_nikon/index.htm

28-75: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_2875_28_nikon/index.htm

Also these are 'Di' marked lenses, meaning they're made for digital, not full 35mm film. Does the 1.5x focal length multiplier still hold for these types of lenses?

Thanks,

--Illah

 

[nakedyak]

i'd go with the 17-50 personally

 

[Illah]

Any reason why besides just the focal length?

--Illah

 

[fmw]

If it were my only lens I would prefer to have some wide angle in the zoom range so I would go with the shorter one. No, the 1.5 doesn't apply here. 17mm is a modest wide angle, 50mm is a short telephoto and 75mm is a medium telephoto.

 

[dsp921]

No, the 1.5 doesn't apply here.

Is this true? Does Tamron not label their digital lenses with the actual focal length? I know Nikon uses the physical focal length on their DX lenses and the 1.5 crop factor still exists. I would think it would be the same for all manufacturers.

Edit: OK, I answered my own question, I was flipping through a magazine and saw an ad for Tamron lenses, they do indicate the actual focal length so the 1.5x scaling factor for the different view angle on the smaller sensor still applies.

 

[Illah]

Cool, good to know. Looks like the 17-50 is it. I was playing around with my current lens and a 28mm (~40mm on full format) and it's just not wide enough for many situations. Also reviews put the Tamron in the league of the Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 which is like $1200 so it seems like a solid choice. Now I just gotta give myself a bit to save up that $450+...life has been beating my wallet mercilessly lately so it might have to wait a month or so!

If anyone else has any other opinions on the lens, or knows of a better alternative for $500 or less, I'd still love to hear what you have to say.

--Illah

 

[Illah]

OK - so I sprang for the Tamron, couldn't wait! So far it's great, that f2.8 makes more difference than I thought.

So, just to help me verify my purchase to myself I was wondering how to best take test photos to compare the quality of the two lenses?

--Illah