Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

Boz Mon · Feb 1, 2009

What can you tell me about this lens? I am 90% sure that this will be my next lens to replace my 18-55mm kit lens for my D40. I have heard that this lens is sharp even at f/2.8 unlike the sigma equivalent. I am getting enough money from taxes to go out and buy it, but I was looking for some final input on this lens

chrisburke · Feb 1, 2009

people posted their thoughts on it in this forum

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...llery/152072-tamron-lenses-vs-name-brand.html

Boz Mon · Feb 1, 2009

there was 1 guy in that thread that briefly said something about the lens. Anyone else have any input on said lens?

potownrob · Feb 1, 2009

That's the lens I replaced my kit lens with. I do notice better sharpness, but mainly when zooming in on a shot I took. I don't take shots of enough real things (as opposed to cardboard boxes and other stupid things around my house) to notice too much of a difference, though I haven't really used the old kit lens since I got the 17-50. I did notice a little more clarity with the 17-50 when I put on the old lens and took some shots around the computer to remember what the kit lens was like. The main thing for me with the 17-50 is that it is faster, especially at full telephoto, but even at 17mm, the f/2.8 is noticeably faster than the 18-55 with its f/3.5 max aperture. Having f/2.8 at 50mm is great and you will wonder how you ever put up with f/5.6 as the biggest aperture at 55mm. Another thing to keep in mind is that you get an extra mm of wide-end with the 17-50 which is definitely noticeable for me since I like to shoot in close quarters and also landscape type shots outside. With the 18-55, I was oftentimes wishing for more wide-end to fit in whole buildings or a whole room; the 17mm of the 17-50 is oftentimes plenty wide, even though it's not that much wider. On the other hand, I do sometimes notice the missing 5mm at the telephoto end (50mm vs. 55mm), but you can usually cover that tiny gap with a step or two if that. This isn't much of a big deal for me since I also have the 55-200 VR stashed in my camera bag for when I need or want it.

Kegger · Feb 1, 2009

This lens is a fantastic piece of glass. Very sharp throughout the entire focal range wide open. It is my primary lens in my potrait arsenal.

Here is an example wide open at 27mm

Boz Mon · Feb 1, 2009

will it autofocus on a D40?

potownrob · Feb 1, 2009

You have to make sure to get the model that says for Nikon w/ built-in motor, for the D40. Forgot to mention it does feel more solid than the kit lens and it's also heavier. Most other options would be even more solid and yet heavier, so I think it's about perfect for the D40. It makes it look and feel more serious, if you know what I mean. As for it being a great portrait lens, the glass is sharper, but also keep in mind (as I mentioned) that you can go as wide as f/2.8 at 50mm, while a kit lens is stuck at f/5.6 and you need to stop down to probably f/8 to get a sharp shot, at which point, if the background is close to the subject, it will be in focus too, which can be distracting (depending on the background). With the 17-50, you get good sharpness at f/2.8 but even better at f/4 which is a more typical portrait aperture, plus your background will still be blurred (which is usually good).

photogincollege · Feb 1, 2009

Yes it will autofocus with d40. The specifications say it has a built in motor so your good. Yeah just get it where it says built in motor lol.

potownrob · Feb 1, 2009

photogincollege said:
Yes it will autofocus with d40. The specifications say it has a built in motor so your good. Yeah just get it where it says built in motor lol.

I think the earlier ones didn't have the motor and then they started making them with the motor last spring. I'm not sure if they still make the one without the motor though. One thing I forgot that you should keep in mind if you ever plan to go full frame is that the 17-50 is a DI-II lens, meaning it is designed for use on crop sensor cameras (like the D40 and most dSLRs), so it won't be able to take full advantage of the full frame sensor on cameras like the D700 or D3 if you should ever upgrade to them.

Boz Mon · Feb 1, 2009

Awesome, I think I have made up my mind now. anyone else have any input?

jlykins · Feb 2, 2009

I have that lens with my D300. Great lens. Super sharp from edge to edge. Fast autofocus, and all around nice build quality. Here is one that I snapped of my son a few weeks ago. Lighting is a little harsh but you get the idea on the sharpness

jlykins · Feb 2, 2009

Sorry didn't put the image in...

Dionysus · Feb 2, 2009

i desperately want this lens to replace my kit..but its still out of my reach right now...a couple more months of saving and i'll have it.

Lynnzora · Feb 2, 2009

Ok I was looking up the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and some say AF and others say SP which one is better. I have a Pentax k20d. Thanks in advance!

potownrob · Feb 2, 2009

Lynnzora said:
Ok I was looking up the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and some say AF and others say SP which one is better. I have a Pentax k20d. Thanks in advance!

Assuming the AF means autofocus, they should all be both AF and SP. SP just means the lens is part of the pro lineup of lenses. Sometimes they forget to put both designations in the title or description on sites. Any lens marked something like "Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for Pentax" should be right.