Nikon 18-70 vs. tamron 17-50


TPF Noob!
Aug 4, 2007
Reaction score
Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I was wondering if anyone knows how the nikon 18-70 f/3.5-f4.5 compares to the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 image quality wise. I know the tamron will have better low light performance, but I figure if I can save a couple hundred and snag a used 18-70 and then also the nikon 50 mm 1.4 that might be better then the 17-50 2.8, would it still be better even if i pared the 17-50 2.8 with a 50mm 1.8? Ive never used the 50 mm 1.8 but I have used the 1.4 and LOVE it. So the first option is very tempting and I just want other opionons. (yes I did do a search.) The reason I ask is I hear the 18-70 is pretty dang sharp and the distortions/vignetting are minimal. So I figured that nice range paired with a good low light lens would be best, what do you think? I shoot mostly portraits and some landscapes, and plan to do a lot of low light stuff, so I thought the 1.4 would be good, and maybe also i'll have enough for a good tripod. What does everyone think? (sorry for the long winded post)
There is also the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-f/4.5

Sorry I can't help you on the two you mentioned:(
I can speak to some of the post. I have the 17 - 50 and love it. I got it to replace the kit 18 - 55 (sorry can't compare to the 18 - 70) and for me the 2.8 makes all of the difference. It allows the lens to perform well in low light and depending on the types of portraits you take that might be a pretty big deciding factor for you. I also have the 50 1.8 and of course love that too. Not sure how it compares to the 1.4 but I know the 1.8 is very popular because it's about $200 less than the 1.4. So based off of the popularity I would say it's safe to say most people feel the 1.4 isn't worth the extra money but that's very subjective. The 1.8 is amazing for low light and portraits. The image quality is really astounding and although I've never used the 1.4 I'm sure it's just as high quality.

If it was me making the choice I'd spend the money on the 17 - 50 because I'd get more use of the lens and then save it on the prime and go with the 1.8. Wait... I already did decide this one. :er:
Not to sound like a jerk, but you've been looking at midrange zooms for 2 months now, didn't you formulate a decision in the last 4 threads? I mean, how indecisive can you be?
correction, 6.

Methinks you should stop fretting about equipment, just get SOMETHING, and shoot. They'll all pretty much look the same, you're over complicating this.

Most reactions