Nikon 17-55 2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm 2.8: Which wold you buy?

[WhyteMyke]

So, I'm ready to get a new zoom lens, and my choices are:

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8

or

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

The Tamron is affordable to me now, but it would only take me a couple of months to be able to afford the Nikon. I dont really need it at the moment either. So, Im just wondering, is it worth it to just save up and wait a couple of months and grab the Nikon, or would the Tamron be good enough? This would be a "walk around" for doing weddings/outdoor events/etc, shooting with my D7000. Thanks in advance!

 

[thierry]

Dude, If you do not need it right away, I would save up for the Nikon. Nothing beats it. The Tamron is a great lens by all means and an excellent alternative, but I would def save up for the Nikon if you are able to.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Nikon.

 

[WhyteMyke]

Sounds good to me, I think I'll wait and save the extra $. Thanks for your input guys!!!

 

[thierry]

Good choice! Your welcome!

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I personally don't see the appeal of the Nikon 17-55 2.8, its stupidly expensive, weighs a ton and has no VR. When you can get a Tamron at a slice of the price with similar Image quality, it's a no brainer to me! I would honestly much prefer a Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS to the Nikon.

Obviously, it appears you have made up your mind. But I just thought I;d add my input, as the money you save from buying the Tammy can then be invested in other lenses or other areas of photographic equipment.

 

[cbarbero]

I disagree somewhat with the image quality. Similar possibly, close, no way. Nikon glass is now one of the strongest out there.

 

[vipgraphx]

If you are only using for hobby go with the tamron. If you are using for professional go Nikon here is the reason. Nikon guaranties they will work with future models both tamron and sigma can not. If you are not on a budget go nikon you will get a more heavy duty lens. Also nikon holds their value way better so if you decide to sell it you will not loose to much money like a tamron.

I have always been more of a nikon guy BUT, I just purchased a TOKINA 12-24 and this lens will knock your socks off. Build quality its like a tank images are sharper than the nikon (at least from reviews and a few personal comparisons) but for the price I paid i will never look back and regret this purchase. This lens is what made me open my eyes to 3rd party lens options.

Good luck and hope this helps

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I disagree somewhat with the image quality. Similar possibly, close, no way. Nikon glass is now one of the strongest out there.

I'm afraid to say, they are CLOSE in image quality (Check out the tests below). I know alot of people round here like to say Nikon glass is superior to everything else in the world. But it is simply not true. Nikon generally do make amazing glass and it is generally better, but by no means is it superior. The Nikon 17-55 which is bulky, VRless and costs a bomb is simply not good value for money, Photozone.de says exactly the same thing.. it does not justify the price tag Nikon places on it.

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (Nikon) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 G IF-ED DX - Review / Test Report - Analysis

See the comparisons for yourself...

 

[Patrice]

Do not make a purchase decision solely based on reviews and specs found on the internet. Internet user reviews are 100% biased, they are the opinion of the reviewer. Charts full of specs that may be significant when you take up pixel peeping as a hobby do not give you a true sense of what a lens can be.

There must be some things about the Nikkor that make it a sought after item, regardless of spec charts. It is a solid well made piece of photographic equipment that will last for years and years. It has a nice balance of sharpness, contrast and color rendition. Many photographers do not consider image stabilization crucial at these shorter focal lengths, to wit the 14-24, 17-35, 24-70 and 28-70, do not have any image stabilization systems and they are either the current top of the heap Nikkor or were one generation back. Heck, it's just something else that could go bad and you might not really need it.

Go and try them out the lenses you are interested in personally. Why would trust such an expensive purchase decision to someone you've never met and has no stake in the outcome. Even if you don't have access to a store selling them, B&H an Adorama will gladly refund your money on a purchase you don't want, as long as the packaging and such is undamaged.

 

[awdSTi]

I agree with the guy above. The internet is only as reliable as the people who use it. With that out of the way, a lot professional photographers love the nikon nikkor lens, they might be on the pricey side but according to nikon and a lot photographers I have talked to all say the same thing, its not about brand loyality rather than the quality of the glass in the lens. Tamron is a great lower end brand, I think what you should do it figure out how serious you wanna get with photography and then see if you rent both lens to see which works best for your skill level and budget.
Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

 

[flatflip]

I like the concensus of "how serious are you?". Check out my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for sale in the buy & sell forum. Not only is it a great lens for you to consider buying, it is a good example of why it was a good choice for me. I wanted the Nikon 17-55 or the Nikon 24-70 or what ever that pro lens is. I settled for the Tamron because it was great for the money. Now I want my money back for money reasons. I will lose some money when I sell but meanwhile I'm only out $450.

To the aspiring pro; Good Luck
To the aspiring photography; Have Fun

Mick

 

[djacobox372]

Id go with the tamron, its a great lens. The nikon may be slightly better technically, but not in a way that human eyes can really appreciate.

 

[ceejec]

I'd rent both and take it out for a date.. take similar photographs using both lenses and choose which appeals more to me.. Though I'm currently saving for the nikon

 

[bhop]

I bought the Tamron. Got sick of its slow focus speed and dropped the cash for the Nikon. I wish I would've skipped the Tamron and used the cash towards the Nikon in the first place... although, if you don't care about noisy slow focus, then the IQ is still excellent. The build quality and focus performance just can't compare though.

Actually, I just remembered that my Tamron started falling apart when I was using it.. the front element unscrewed itself somehow and the hood kept falling off until it was eventually lost in a crowd. These issues could've just been my personal copy, but still, it puts me off Tamron products.