Tamron 17-50 2.8? I think this is now the lens for me.

[Nikon_Josh]

I think I've made an interesting discovery, for awhile now I have been looking for something special to cover me in the mid range on my D90. I got the 35mm 1.8. But I have found the focal length quite awkward for me personally and the bokeh is so so, I much prefer my Sigma 50 1.4 for shallow DOF photography. I have been looking at 24mm primes and nothing really jumps out at me quality wise, of course I'd love a 24 1.4 AFS-G (36mm equiv) but it is absurdly expensive.

I have looked at the Tammy 17-50 2.8 in more depth and its performance seems quite astonishing, it nearly matches the 35 1.8 at 2.8 according to test results. It really is stupidly cheap as well for the performance it gives! If I sell my 35 and my 18-55 I will have money to spare it would appear! I did prefer the idea of getting a prime, due to the fact primes force me to work harder to get the shot, which is always a good thing as zooming can make me lazy. Which means the downside is, I will have to discipline myself more when using the zoom to move my feet and not just twist the zoom ring.

So Tammy 17-50 owners/users? Do you think I'm making a wise choice here??. I've heard alot of good about this lens on this forum, I think I would like a bit of confirmation before I place my Nikon lenses on fleabay.

 

[Bo4key]

Are you looking at the VC or non-VC model?

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Are you looking at the VC or non-VC model?

I'm looking at the Non-VC. I hear it's sharper?

 

[MLeeK]

I have one (non VC) and I am not IN LOVE with it, but for it's price it is a pretty awesome lens.
Part of the reason I am not over the moon is operator error-the 17mm end gets me into trouble with the darned distortion that I forget to pay attention to.
Another reason-I can't use it on my full frame. When I bought it I didn't think I'd care... I do. I had to purchase another lens to cover it's range.
There is a HUGE jump in quality from f/2.8 to f/4. I do not like to use it at f/2.8, personally... but it's not BAD...
Here's f/2.8

f/4

f/8

 

[MLeeK]

There is zero processing on those. I removed the curve, sharpening, etc. Those are straight up raw images on a 7D.
ISO 100, 200 and 800. Shutter of 1/125

 

[Bo4key]

Are you looking at the VC or non-VC model?

I'm looking at the Non-VC. I hear it's sharper?

I've heard the same. I'm also looking at this lens to replace my Canon kit lens eventually and would love to hear some first hand feedback on it.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

There is zero processing on those. I removed the curve, sharpening, etc. Those are straight up raw images on a 7D.
ISO 100, 200 and 800. Shutter of 1/125

Thank you for these mleek, really appreciate it. Look's pretty darn sharp to me! I know you have quite a few tammy lenses so I was hoping you may contribute... I love the way my 90mm Macro renders images, beautiful colour, clarity, bokeh and sharpness! I'm hoping this lens can be a match for the stunning results.

 

[Netskimmer]

I have the non-vc version as well and I really like how sharp it is.