Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD thoughts?

[Darkhunter139]

Someone on my local craigslist is selling this lens for $350 (I might be able to talk him down to 300) it seems like a good lens and has got some decent reviews.

Link to lens:

Tamron | 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical | AF016NII-700

Another thing is I kind of want the sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 but its way out of my price range right now and I already have the Nikon 55-200mm AF-S VR lens which I am very happy with.

Anyone have experience with this lens id like to get your thoughts, Thanks!

 

[Sam6644]

I actually just played with one tonight attached to a Nikon D300s and two nights ago on a Canon 50D. I was impressed by it's build quality for both the Canon and Nikon.

It focused much faster on the 50D for whatever reason.

I play on buying one sometime in the next week or so.

 

[Darkhunter139]

Is it vastly superior to the kit lens? I am just wondering if its worth the $300 investment right now, there are other things I want but if I will be using this for a long time I might just put the other stuff on hold and go for this while I can get it at this price.

 

[Sam6644]

very much so. That kit lens is trash, man. I have one too.

my roommate tried to sell his at a camera store. The guy said, "Man, I can't even sell those things for $70 in here"

 

[Darkhunter139]

Gah I really want it! If he will take $300 I think ill get it.

 

[icassell]

I have had mine for 3 years and used it on my 30D and now my 7D. This lens lives on my camera >75% of the time and I love it. It is sharp and solidly built. The only downside is that it focuses a bit slower than an ultrasonic lens, but that hasn't been a problem for me. See if you can get a copy of the receipt from him as Tamron has a 6 year warranty.

Definitely worth $300 and also worth his asking price. They recently released a new version with image stabilization, but I don't see that as very important in this focal range.

 

[Darkhunter139]

Awesome, I hope he emails me back and lives close to me, he didn't list his area.

 

[Sam6644]

I have had mine for 3 years and used it on my 30D and now my 7D. This lens lives on my camera >75% of the time and I love it. It is sharp and solidly built. The only downside is that it focuses a bit slower than an ultrasonic lens, but that hasn't been a problem for me. See if you can get a copy of the receipt from him as Tamron has a 6 year warranty.

Definitely worth $300 and also worth his asking price. They recently released a new version with image stabilization, but I don't see that as very important in this focal range.

I've read that the image quality is better on the non-stabilization version anyway.

 

[AUZambo]

I've got that lens for my Sony A700 and I love it. I paid about $450 at B&H a couple years ago and don't regret it one bit.

It's my lens of choice 90% of the time.

 

[PatrickHMS]

A Tamron 17-50 constant f/2.8 is worth $300, even $350 ANY time. If you can get it for $300.00 you can always get your $$ back on your local CL, if nothing else

I have a Sigma, very similiar to the Tamron, and I love it!

I know the Nikon "kit" lens doesn't sell for much, but optically speaking, especially for the $$ I wouldn't necessarily call it junk.

 

[Dao]

My walk around lens on my camera is the Tamron 17-50mm F.2.8. I bought it about 1 year ago for $300 used in great condition. The seller upgraded his camera from 40D to 5D, so he couldn't use the lens. Great lens!

 

[Sam6644]

A Tamron 17-50 constant f/2.8 is worth $300,

I know the Nikon "kit" lens doesn't sell for much, but optically speaking, especially for the $$ I wouldn't necessarily call it junk.

I think any non-telephoto with a non-constant aperture that only goes down to 3.5 at it's widest is junk.

 

[Diamond Dave]

I think any non-telephoto with a non-constant aperture that only goes down to 3.5 at it's widest is junk.

It's a fine lens for what you pay for it and hardly junk. I've seen many beautiful photographs come from it. And I've seen a lot of loudmouths who had more money than skill produce actual junk with more expensive lenses. :roll:

 

[Sam6644]

I use it every day. It sucks.


you can take nice photos with it from a hobby standpoint or if you can take your time with it, but as soon as you start shooting in more demanding situations it doesn't really get the job done.

 

[PatrickHMS]

I think any non-telephoto with a non-constant aperture that only goes down to 3.5 at it's widest is junk.

So I can only assume that all your lenses are faster than 3.5? What camera body do you shoot with? You must have some really nice stuff, having such an opinion about junky vs. non-junky gear and seemingly being so picky about it.

I have the lowly 18-55mm kit lens, and the lowly 55-200mm VR, for what they are, for what they were designed to do, for what they cost, they do just fine as far as IQ goes. I had a Nikon 18-200 VR, and although I really liked the focal length (WHOOPS, not faster than a 3.5), I don't feel the IQ had a value of 3X what the 55-200mm VR sells for.

A Professional photographer from say, 7-10 years ago would consider much of the technology that some of us consider substandard as being to die for.

Like it really takes $1,500.00 to get into photography, and to be able to take nice photographs.

There are many here who love photography who could never spend that much $$ on their camera gear.

Photography is supposed to be fun, not make you brokeh doing it...