Differences between the Tamron 17-50 2.8 & Nikon 17-55 2.8?

cambsno

cambsno

Messages
20,403
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking at getting one of these, and as soon as I choose one, I start having doubts and thinking of the other - HELP!!!

Basically, I can pick up a new Tamron for around £260 or a SH Nikon for around £600, so the Tamron stands out there. I also have seen a number of comments saying there is not a massive difference between the 2 image wise (if any). However I have heard that the Tamron is slowish to AF, and as over half my pics are of my 15 month old, I do need a speedy AF, so for that reason alone I am favouring Nikon.

Right or wrong choice? Would rather spend less but dont want to buy and regret?

Anyone used both?
 
I have both and use both regularly.

Differences:

Price...Tamron wins easily.
Weight...Tamron wins easily.
Image quality....Nikon just shades it.
Build Quality....Nikon walks it.

The Tamron I have is without the built in motor,by all accounts unless you need the built in motor,this is the one to have as it AFs faster.I can detect no real noticable difference between the two with regards to AF.

The Nikon is built like a tank and should last years,the Tamron less so.

Which to buy? Depends on you and your wallet.

Hope my ramblings help.
 
I presume you've read the online reviews out there? There's a few good ones out there comparing the two - I read them all before opting for the Tamron - based on budget and budget alone. Performance-wise the opinion seemed to be that except from the extreme ends, the Tamron offers virtually identical results. At half the price. The quality issue tends to be mentioned a lot and I did hesitate about buying becuase of that, but needn't have worried. What is meant by "quality" in this instance refers to the fact that the higher end lenses tend to be durable metal and the lower end (including Nikon lenses) tend to be less durable plastic, hence the life expectency and weight differences. But the Tamron is actually well made and "feels" smooth and solid.

It isn't slow to AF - not in my experience, but can't really comment on the speed difference between the two. Unless the Nikon is ultra-quick I doubt that you would notice taking shots of your 15 month old.

Bottom line is - the Tamron is a cracking lens for half the price of the Nikon equivalent. If you are on a restricted budget you will not regret buying it. If you have the money then by all means splash out.
 
honestly if you get a sharp copy of the tamron and aren't going to bash it around i'd say it's the weapon of choice however if it's for a profession then i'd say the nikon.

i'd verge on saying the nikon 17-55 is one of the few lenses made you could possibly use as a hammer, it's a brick and weighs as much as one.

if you're contemplating walking around with it then tamron without a doubt

apart from that i'd agree pretty much with what everyone else has said
 
Far from being a pro, and do take very good care of my stuff. I can afford the Nikon SH, but if I did go for Tamron, this would leave me around £300 left over which could always be used for other things.
 
I have both. Both are very good. Sometimes the Tamron seems better, sometimes, the Nikon.
But... The Nikon is built like a tank and is much more expensive. The Tamron looks and feels a bit plasticky and feels a little delicate ( in comparison). The Nikon autofocuses much quicker and is almost silent, but, in its favour, the Tamron is quick and not that noisy. It does tend to hunt a bit more than the Nikon ( not much though)

If you read the reviews, (Look HERE,) the Tamron comes out top on sharpness throughout the range.

I wouldnt like to tell you which one to go for, but, I wont be keeping both of mine, I have a definate favourite. Reviews are one thing, real life is another and I know which lens produces the nicest images for me.

Heres the two lenses side by side. Guess which is which!!

3804040324_5ba27a8f1b.jpg


3803227101_f4c8f2feaf.jpg



Allan
 
allanm said:
I have both. Both are very good. Sometimes the Tamron seems better, sometimes, the Nikon.
But... The Nikon is built like a tank and is much more expensive. The Tamron looks and feels a bit plasticky and feels a little delicate ( in comparison). The Nikon autofocuses much quicker and is almost silent, but, in its favour, the Tamron is quick and not that noisy. It does tend to hunt a bit more than the Nikon ( not much though)

If you read the reviews, (Look HERE,) the Tamron comes out top on sharpness throughout the range.

I wouldnt like to tell you which one to go for, but, I wont be keeping both of mine, I have a definate favourite. Reviews are one thing, real life is another and I know which lens produces the nicest images for me.

Heres the two lenses side by side. Guess which is which!!

3804040324_5ba27a8f1b.jpg


3803227101_f4c8f2feaf.jpg



Allan
Click to expand...

So which one will you be keeping ? :)
 
The build quality of the Nikon is considerably better than the Tamron, however this makes it quite a bit heavier, but both are excellent. If you can afford to go straight to the Nikon, then go for it, but you won't feel short-changed by the Tamron, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top