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

kami · May 22, 2009

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!

KmH · May 23, 2009

You can find lens reviews at Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ .

People tend to tout what they have as a means to justify their choice rather than make an unbiased recommendation.

Mike_E · May 23, 2009

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.

Joves · May 23, 2009

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.

Garbz · May 24, 2009

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.

kami · May 24, 2009

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!

Joves · May 24, 2009

You want a good lens then. As I said the Sigma is a great little lens.

dhilberg · May 24, 2009

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

AtlPikMan · May 24, 2009

I vote for the Tamron. I have it and i care nothing for the wayy to expensive Nikkor.

bhop · May 25, 2009

I have the Tamron. I like it enough. I wish it'd focus a little faster though..

JerryPH · May 25, 2009

kami said:
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.

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.

RyanLilly · May 25, 2009

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.

kami · May 25, 2009

I think you guys have mistaken me for a professional photographer! LOL! I'm only photographing my little cousin's baptism for my own experience and will share pics to my relatives for their enjoyment. I'm not being paid to take pictures nor was I asked to be the designated photographer. I'm only taking the opportunity to practice taking pictures while attending my cousin's baptism.

Jerry, I'll ask again if I can use off camera flashes. Didn't think of it at the time. I have 2 SB-600's which I used last time at a country club and it worked great with my 50mm 1.4

I too don't know anyone who does not want the "best" available equipment. I did some research on the Tamron and Sigma prior to posting and have read multiple times that people had to return their units for several reasons. Some had to recieve up to a 3rd unit and some had to have their units recalibrated. I did not want to have to go through the hassle so I initially preferred the Nikon 17-55 which had the less number of complaints from users and the pictures I saw posted was what I was satisfied with.

However I had to reconsider buying the Nikon after several misc. purchases strangled my budget (nursing books, school, advance coronary care seminars out of state, and car repairs and maintenance) so I'm now reverting back to considering the Tamron and Sigma lenses again.

I would like to apologize if my research has not been enough. It's hard enough spending the whole day studying, finishing my case studies and working as a student nurse on the telemetry unit so my time online is very limited. I'm actually at work right now on my laptop in the break room! LOL!

The new Sigma lens looks most likely what I'm going to get. Thanks for the speedy help again! I needed it.

JerryPH · May 26, 2009

kami said:
I would like to apologize if my research has not been enough. The new Sigma lens looks most likely what I'm going to get. Thanks for the speedy help again! I needed it.

No need to apologize.

What you should know (I have mentioned it here a couple times), is that there are 3 variants of the Sigma 18-50... gen 1, gen 2 and gen 3. Gen 1 and 2 were TERRIBLE. Gen 3, the 18-50 F/2.8 DC EX HSM MACRO is the one that is the gem in the middle of the fakes. People assume that all 18-50s ar bad and that is not true. I have not heard of anyone having any issues with the newest ones.

I suggest that you read the flickr Tamrom and Sigma sites specific to each lens. There are many reports of people with the Tamron with the inset screws that come loose over time and the front element falling out if not addressed. Scary.

NateS · May 26, 2009

I have the Tamron and I love it. It is sharp at f2.8 and exceptionally sharp by f/4.

I'm going to be honest....I really wanted the Sigma 18-50 f2.8...really. It is a back and forth on which is better between it and the Tamron...based on what review you read. The main reason I was leaning toward the Sigma was the macro feature which would come in handy. However, the Sigma has had a lot of sample variation from what I've read versus the Tamron that has very little sample variation. Since I was ordering the lens from B&H, I didn't want to have the hassle of getting a copy with front/back focusing issues and having to return it or send it to sigma.....so I bought the Tamron instead.

I'm extremely happy with the Tamron and it still focuses pretty close, just not quite as close as the Sigma.