Tamron vs. Nikkor

[Illah]

I use a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (same family as the 28-75) and it's excellent. Haven't had an issue yet. Also read up and check reviews of the 28-75, it's considered one of the best lenses in that range, period. Not just for the price, but one of the best in that range for *any* price.

I'm still pretty fresh to photography, but so far my experience here has been the same as in other areas where I have years of experience: off-brands are often MUCH better values. They can't compete in terms of reputation or renown, so they do so on price. It's basically the same gear without the added overhead of a huge marketing and R&D budget.

One thing you will sacrafice is build quality, but that's an amorphous term. People make it sound like after X amount of time the thing will just implode. What it really means is that its not weather sealed nor does it have a heavy metal body construction, and no internal AF motor. If you plan a month-long trip through the Amazon and need lightning quick AF to catch a rare monkey in a tree, then yeah, you might want a Nikkor. Almost anyone else probably doesn't need that kind of build quality.

And the Nikkor 17-50 is $1200. I got my Tamron for $450. Even if it does somehow manage to fall apart in 5-10 years, I could buy a new one with the latest optics and still be saving money.


--Illah

 

[Illah]

Your fears are not unfounded at all. As a general rule, zooms that cover a very large range of focal lengths, those with a high zoom multiplier like 10x, tend not to be very impressive optically. They're usually designed to be cheap, and to make a similar zoom with good optical performance at both the wide and long ends (with minimal distortion and other issues) is not cheap, which is why the highly-regarded Nikon 18-200mm zoom costs twice as much as the Tamron equivalent. Lenses like that Nikon are the exception to the rule, and you'll generally be able to tell the exceptions by their much higher prices.

While everyone hypes on that 18-200VR, it is still a pretty slow lens (painfully slow when long, I think f6.3!) and while better than the rest it's still an 11x zoom...barrell distortion is an issue.

But at the same time if someone gave me one as a gift I wouldn't complain

--Illah

 

[Don Simon]

But at the same time if someone gave me one as a gift I wouldn't complain

Neither would I... I'd be too busy swapping it for primes

 

[Garbz]

I just bought the 18-70mm AF-S instead of the 18-200 AF-S VR after I read a review on them. The cheaper 18-70 performed far better in all aspects and nearly all zooms and aperatures. I'll get a dedicated telefocus lens later for sports and nature photography.