Which cost effective lens would you guys recommend at par with the Nikon 17-55?

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by kami, May 22, 2009.

  1. kami

    kami TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I need an indoor, low light lens and have been saving up for the nikon lens for the past couple months. However I have some other priorities that have come up and decided to try an alternative.

    I'm not yet settled on which of the following lens I should get so please chime in.

    Sigma 18-50 2.8
    Tokina 16-50 2.8
    Tamron 17-50 2.8

    If there are any other lenses not mentioned above let me know. Thanks!
     
  2. KmH

    KmH Helping photographers learn to fish Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    38,233
    Likes Received:
    5,007
    Location:
    Iowa
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
  3. Mike_E

    Mike_E No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    5,327
    Likes Received:
    264
    Location:
    The Upper West Side of Mississippi (you have no i
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    You would be hard pressed to be limited by the latest and greatest of any of the three. Tokina has the better rep for build quality.
     
  4. Joves

    Joves No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,399
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Flagstaff/Az
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    The Sigma is a great lens. If you go to B&H and read the user reviews eveyone loves it and, at $420 it is a bargain. I believe Jerry has one as well. Maybe he will chime in.
     
  5. Garbz

    Garbz No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    On par how? The 17-55 is not known for exceptional image quality so that should be matched by it's cheaper third party cousins. However the build quality is exceptional and won't be matched even by the sturdy tamron.

    I see the Tamron recommended time and time again, but I have neither used it nor seen it so more research there may be warranted.
     
  6. kami

    kami TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Thanks for the replies! :hug:: I don't need a lens with exeptional image quality that's why I chose the 17-55. Just a reliable lens that gets the job done, is of good quality and that fits the budget. However my budget just hit a little snag so I'm pressed to get an alternative before June 14 which is my cousin's baptism. I've scouted out the church already and it definitely needs a fast lens (we can't use flash).

    If not, I'll have to put up with my nifty fifty again. lol

    I was hoping to hear from people who've actually used a combination of the above lenses mentioned to know a significant difference between them.

    Anyway....still trying to read reviews..:x

    Hopefully when I'm done with my nursing degree I can get good toys to play with!
     
  7. Joves

    Joves No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,399
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Flagstaff/Az
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    You want a good lens then. As I said the Sigma is a great little lens.
     
  8. dhilberg

    dhilberg TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Washougal, WA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I second the Sigma 18-50. Just make sure you get the f/2.8 HSM Macro, which is the newest version.

    The build quality is better than I thought it would be, but it still doesn't compare to any Nikkor pro lens.

    Optically it seems very good, sharp even at f/2.8. Although I haven't spent a whole lot of time with it yet.

    For the price it is excellent.

    Sigma | 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Macro Lens for Nik | 582-306
     
  9. AtlPikMan

    AtlPikMan TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Atlanta, Ga
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I vote for the Tamron. I have it and i care nothing for the wayy to expensive Nikkor.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2009
  10. bhop

    bhop No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,209
    Likes Received:
    236
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I have the Tamron. I like it enough. I wish it'd focus a little faster though..
     
  11. JerryPH

    JerryPH No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,111
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    In this range, there is SO MUCH repeating information, that it is not funny. Have you tried a search here?

    Last year, 3 independent photo magazines did a shootout between the Nikkor 17-55, Sigma 18-50 and the tamron 17-50. The Sigma won ALL THREE TIMES and it is 1/3rd the price of the Nikkor.

    This concept of not wanting to to purchase the best lens out there is just... strange. Who wants to plunk down money on a lens that is sturdy but gives mediocre results? No photographer that I know... and I see the word church. Wedding photography? Nothing BUT the best should be in your head!!

    In this range, though, you should be looking at lenses in a huge focal distance range like 30mm F/1.4, 50mm F/1.4, 70-200 F/2.8. Nothing slower than F/2.8 either.

    When I do a wedding I use everything from a 15mm fisheye to the 24-70, 85mm F/1.4 and the wedding photographer's bread and butter, the 70-200 F/2.8.

    The camera body is also important, as you want something that is good between ISO 800-3200 for the times that the shot just looks better without flash or you are simply not allowed.

    Then there is the whole concept of off camera flash. In today's world, if you haven't mastered it, you are losing about 80% of the potential quality shots compared to shooting without it, whenever possible, of course. Here is the rub... 90% of the time on camera flash will be refused becuase you are blasting the people 5-20 feet from you. If the flash is used as directional fill flash and it is on a tripod 50 feet away... you are allowed to use it more often than not and it is NOT intrusive... you just have to show that it is not AND prove it, as well as know how.
     
  12. RyanLilly

    RyanLilly No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    St. Louis, Missouri, USofA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I have the tamron in the canon mount and it's quite good. However, the newest version of the sigma offers HMS(for nikon at least), a 3:1 macro, and it focuses quieter as well. I don't think you'll be disapponted with this lens. You also might want to consider some wider/faster primes, although cost may be an issue for new lenses, but you might find some older lenses for a fair price.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

lens photography baby baptism 85mm