Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-vc) vs. Nikon 18-55 kit lens - Worthy upgrade?

ShutterWork

ShutterWork

Messages
865
Name
Anand
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

With my euro trip planned in couple of months, I was planning on upgrading my nikon kit lens (18-55) to a Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC to serve as a walkabout lens as it would mainly be the landscapes and infrequent protraitures

I know there are better lenses out there, but wanted to keep the price to minimum as planning on going full frame in near future (presently have nikon D5000)

Not sure if any of you have had similar upgrade and found it worthwhile? Just wanted to check if there indeed would be a big difference in image quality or are we just saying marginal?

Thanks
Anand
 
I found a massive difference to the Canon kit lens i had before, lots better image quality but the constant f2.8 aperture is the best part!
 
Cyprino said:
I found a massive difference to the Canon kit lens i had before, lots better image quality but the constant f2.8 aperture is the best part!
Click to expand...

Thanks :)..hope it's the same for Nikon...any experience from Nikonites?
 
I got a Tamron 17-50 non vc from this forum as a replacement to the kit lens which came with my d7000, its a huge improvement and one im sure you would not regret, highly recommended .
 
For me, the 18-55 was a great lens. I know a lot of folk snob it because its a cheap and plastic kit lens but I found it to be everything I needed, bar fast aperture.

Anyhow, the tamron has the faster aperture being almost a stop faster or 2 stops faster depending on where you are in the zoom range for the 18-55mm.

That's the main difference. If you need more light entry to the body (let's face it who doesn't?!) then you need the upgrade, if you feel don't then you don't :)

Only consideration for me would be the AF consistency wide open, which for me tested below what I was prepared to accept. But that's me.
 
Thanks Mike and Phil. Absolutely the sorts of answer I was looking for.

Guess I will go with the upgrade then :)
 
Hi Anand,

I see you are planning on going to FF would the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 not be worth looking at or is 28 not wide enough. I am also thinking about getting one of the Tamrons but not sure which one.

The price for the 17-50 is good on DR but I am thinking is the £79 extra worth for the 5 year warranty for a UK supplier..
 
AchimT said:
For FF, I guess the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 would be an excellent option. But it should be bought in a shop, in case it needs some initial adjustment.
Click to expand...

24-70 is just too expensive..
 
The tamron is good in fact excellent for the money but the nikon 16-85 is even better

Perfect nikon walkabout lens IMO
 
Another D7000 user.

I have the non VC tammy, and it lives on my camera. I tested the Nik 16/85 and the tammy together for a month and I preferred the tammy. I do gig photography and the nikon was unusable in that format.

You should be able to pick one up here for about £200. And when you go full frame youll get all or most of that back...
 
The nikon is very sharp though and thanks to the very good vr it's not bad in low light

16mm is usefully wider too IMO

It's one of those lenses that is better than its specification suggests...
 
The nikon 16-85 VR is a decent lens and is sharp too but if you want fast aperture lens with stabilizer the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC is your option but you lose 35mm on the long end .....

Should go to a shop and try both before you buy.
 
badboy1984 said:
The nikon 16-85 VR is a decent lens and is sharp too but if you want fast aperture lens with stabilizer the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC is your option but you lose 35mm on the long end .....

Should go to a shop and try both before you buy.
Click to expand...

Problem is not many shops around stock both lens...
 
Thank you all for your kind comments. Did have a look at the alternative 16-85 nikon. Whilst this seems tempting, the price is double when compared to Tamron. Couldnt justify as I will be upgrading to FF in the near future

So will probably go with Tammy as most people seem to be quite happy with it.

Thanks.
 
sep9001 said:
Hi Anand,

I see you are planning on going to FF would the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 not be worth looking at or is 28 not wide enough. I am also thinking about getting one of the Tamrons but not sure which one.

The price for the 17-50 is good on DR but I am thinking is the £79 extra worth for the 5 year warranty for a UK supplier..
Click to expand...

Thanks...

hmm..do think 28 may not be adequately wide...

DR prices are very tempting and too be honest I may go with them. I see this lens as a temporary upgrade until have more funds for FF. So don't really envisage keeping the lens for that long for that extra 5 year warranty.
 
ShutterWork said:
Thanks...

hmm..do think 28 may not be adequately wide...

DR prices are very tempting and too be honest I may go with them. I see this lens as a temporary upgrade until have more funds for FF. So don't really envisage keeping the lens for that long for that extra 5 year warranty.
Click to expand...

Good point. I am going to have a play with my 18-70 at 28 and see how it works out as at present not sure what to get.
 
sep9001 said:
Good point. I am going to have a play with my 18-70 at 28 and see how it works out as at present not sure what to get.
Click to expand...

thought there was a way to average your present focal length shots to see the most used.not sure if it's in PSE or Lightroom?? Could be completely wrong, but did read it somewhere.
 
ShutterWork said:
thought there was a way to average your present focal length shots to see the most used.not sure if it's in PSE or Lightroom?? Could be completely wrong, but did read it somewhere.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I think it is in LR. Will have a go once the kids are in bed.
 
17-50 all the way. The VR on the 16-85 is not a replacement for a constant 2.8 nad you can always crop the images a bit to get closer to the 85mm if you have to.

Let alone that the 17-50 is cheap comparatively so reselling it should pretty much leave you with no loss. Loved the lens when I had Nikon gear.
 
i bought the tamron about 18 months ago as i needed the larger aperture for low light situations, its an amazing lens for the money, i had the kit 18-135 and this has been on the camera only once ever since!

defo go for the tamron
 
sep9001 said:
Thanks. I think it is in LR. Will have a go once the kids are in bed.
Click to expand...

I have just check and off the 630 pictures taken with my 18-70, 130 were at 18mm, 70 odd at 70mm, about 20 at 28mm. Looks like might just have to go for the same one as you.. Hope the price does not go up in the next few days.
 
Plus one for the non vc. Mine was being unloved until a friend came round and he borrowed my D90 with the tammy 17-50. Forgot how good it is!


S
 
I'm going to have to side with Phil Young.

I upgraded to a Nikon 17-55 in all honesty it's not massively sharper than the 18-55. I say this as an owner of both a mk1 and a VR 18-55 as well as the 17-55.

But the reason to me to upgrade was:
1:Non rotating front element
2:Full time manual focus override. This also means teh focus ring won't rotate when AF is operating which I find REALLY annoying.
3: 2.8 all the way through
4: Built like a brick.

Notice sharpness isn't in that list. The Tamron gives you 2 of those (1 and 3) but isn't as sharp as the Nikon from what I've seen (never owned that Tamron).

Used right the 18-55 can give great results, stop down, stick it on a tripod. But if you need 2.8 you need 2.8!
 
Thank you all again for your comments. Will order tonight from DR...not sure if it would be dispatched before Monday now though..??
 
ShutterWork said:
Thank you all again for your comments. Will order tonight from DR...not sure if it would be dispatched before Monday now though..??
Click to expand...

Hi

Any updates on your lens?

Thanks
 
sep9001 said:
Hi

Any updates on your lens?

Thanks
Click to expand...

In air as I type. Departed Hong Kong couple of hours ago :)

Should probably have it tomorrow. Will update and post pics soon.
 
maninsuitcase said:
But the reason to me to upgrade was:
1:Non rotating front element
2:Full time manual focus override. This also means teh focus ring won't rotate when AF is operating which I find REALLY annoying.
3: 2.8 all the way through
4: Built like a brick.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the 18-105vr does 1) and 2) also. And it's dirt cheap!
 
ShutterWork said:
Yes, have got mine yesterday front DR.

P.S: Yet to test it.
Click to expand...

Cool, will keep an eye out for your photo's taken with it. Let us know how you get on and how sharp it is.

Thanks
 
Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-vc) vs. Nikon 18-55 kit lens - Worthy upgrade? ....

In short, yes it is :)!!

Focussing is a bit slow, but not noisy as I thought it would be unlike my previously owned Tamron 70-300

IQ is really good 3.2 upwards. Will be posting pics soon.

Only down-side or perhaps something which I need to get used to was -
The front element does not rotate (which is good for my filters), but the actual focus ring rotates which sometimes annoyingly catches your finger being quite rubberised for the grip.

Love the lens though!!
 
ShutterWork said:
Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-vc) vs. Nikon 18-55 kit lens - Worthy upgrade? ....

In short, yes it is :)!!

Focussing is a bit slow, but not noisy as I thought it would be unlike my previously owned Tamron 70-300

IQ is really good 3.2 upwards. Will be posting pics soon.

Only down-side or perhaps something which I need to get used to was -
The front element does not rotate (which is good for my filters), but the actual focus ring rotates which sometimes annoyingly catches your finger being quite rubberised for the grip.

Love the lens though!!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top