Replacing 18-55mm Kit Lens?

bigtel

bigtel

Messages
96
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I have a faulty kit lens so rather than buy another I would like to upgrade and I'm after some advice.

I would love a 24-70 2.8 but I'm getting married in September so can't afford it just yet so I'm looking for something I can use on the honeymoon.

I already have a 50mm 1.8 and 55-300mm.

Any advice appreciated,

Camera is Nikon D3100 btw

Thanks
 
Tamron 17-50mm. Gives you a constant f/2.8 aperture, especially useful on the long end compared to your kit zoom, without the heavy weight of the Nikon 17-55mm/24-70mm.
 
+2. I have one for my d3100 and its great
 
+3 for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

Just make sure you get the one with the built in af motor or it won't af on your body!
 
The tamron 17-50 is a cracking little lens. So light, yet more than a match for the likes of the much pricier Nikon 17-55 2.8. It was my first 2.8,used it on both my old D200 and then on the D90, only sold it on because I went full frame tbh. I've used it for just about all sorts; gigs, parties, events, portraits, street, long exposures ... the only thing it's not much use for is, well, stuff in the distance, it is only 50mm at best :D


Classy French bird by Cagey75, on Flickr


Future model? by Cagey75, on Flickr


Lazy Daisy by Cagey75, on Flickr

At the time I picked a used one [non-VC] up for €280. You may find one even cheaper now.
 
Last edited:
Don't fixed focal lengths offer better performance, optical performance and f number. Moderate wide, prime and a medium tele should do most. But I could be talking nonsense as I'm merely returning to the 'art' after a 30 year gap, apart from point and shoot holiday stuff.
 
Last edited:
They 'can' do yeah. I sold a 50mm after buying that tamron though, because I found it just as sharp. And more flexible. I don't like zooms with massive range in focal length. I think 17-50 is nice for short zoom though.
 
posiview said:
Nikon 17-55 2.8 is a :puke: lens. I rarely have it off my camera.

I've no experience of the Tamron.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

The Nikon is a wonderful lens - basically the last word in mid-range DX zooms - but the Tamron is a better suited match for most people looking to upgrade from their kit lens. The step up in quality and fixed aperture without too much of a weight and size penalty (compared to the Nikon) are just perfect.

(as an owner, at one time or another, of the Nikon 18-55 kit lens, Tamron 17-50, Nikon 17-55! - wow, seems odd to write that out loud! :bonk:)
 
bigtel said:
...I have a faulty kit lens so rather than buy another I would like to upgrade and I'm after some advice.

I would love a 24-70 2.8 but ...
Click to expand...

The Tamron and Nikon lenses others are recommending give you wide angle at 17 mm if that's the way you want to go; but how about a used Nikon AF 35-70mm f/2.8? It's not going to focus as fast as a modern AF-S lens, but it should be good and sharp for portraits etc: link1 link2. If you don't have to have the latest gear, it should be a reasonably priced option.
 
PickleB said:
The Tamron and Nikon lenses others are recommending give you wide angle at 17 mm if that's the way you want to go; but how about a used Nikon AF 35-70mm f/2.8? It's not going to focus as fast as a modern AF-S lens
Click to expand...

On a D3100, that lens won't autofocus at all. The 35-70mm f/2.8 is a good optic - it was Nikon's pro level mid-range zoom at one point - but it's ill suited to the D3100 really.
 
Are all the good reviews above related to the VC or non VC Tamron?

Al
 
Is anyone aware of a place to rent this Tamron 17-50? I'm looking into a similar lens but would like to try it out first!
 
Hmm that's a fair point! I guess I could get the Nikon version as a taster!
 
cotty332000 said:
You might not want to send it back though!:love:
Click to expand...

Ha! Well I have a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 that I am thinking of selling an replacing with something more like a kit lens but of better quality.

I do like the 35mm but it is a bit limiting for me!
 
Ringiho said:
Ha! Well I have a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 that I am thinking of selling an replacing with something more like a kit lens but of better quality.

I do like the 35mm but it is a bit limiting for me!
Click to expand...

I agree,ever since I got my Tamron 17-50mm I don't think I've used my Nikon 35mm f1.8 although overall the iq from the 35mm is slightly better,the convenience of the zoom wins!
I do have a 50mm f1.8 that gets used a fair amount though!
I'm prepearing to make the move to FX but going glass first and have started to swap out the DX lenses for FX!
The difference is fanatastic but the prices are also bank balance cringing!
If the wife ever found out that the 70-200 f2.8 VRII cost double what i told her it cost I would be selling the lot to fund the divorce!:exit:
 
Just a bit of a cheeky bump here. Can someone let me know the correct AF VC version of the Tamron 17-50? I'll be putting it on my D5100.

Thanks!
 
cotty332000 said:
If the wife ever found out that the 70-200 f2.8 VRII cost double what i told her it cost I would be selling the lot to fund the divorce!:exit:
Click to expand...

I seem to also have this problem with most of my gear:D
"is that a new camera?" "no dear - I've had this one for years - honestly!"

Back to subject though, The Tamron 17-50 non VC is a cracking little lens for the money - I loved my one but the upgrade bug got me and I got a Nikon 24-70 (hopefully moving towards full frame - well that's my excuse anyway) (new camera dear?) (what this old thing?)
 
JulesP said:
I seem to also have this problem with most of my gear:D
"is that a new camera?" "no dear - I've had this one for years - honestly!"

Back to subject though, The Tamron 17-50 non VC is a cracking little lens for the money - I loved my one but the upgrade bug got me and I got a Nikon 24-70 (hopefully moving towards full frame - well that's my excuse anyway) (new camera dear?) (what this old thing?)
Click to expand...

:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
Al1944 said:
Anyone?
Click to expand...

There has been loads of debate over this in the last 12 months or so!

From what I understand there isn't much in it IQ wise they are both good!
Some say non VC is slightly better!:thinking:
If you think you will need the VC and don't mind paying a bit more get that otherwise get the non VC!(y)

I have the non VC and with a 50mm max focal length and f2.8 with modern DSLR's with high ISO capabilities do you really need the VC?
 
JulesP said:
I seem to also have this problem with most of my gear:D
"is that a new camera?" "no dear - I've had this one for years - honestly!"

Back to subject though, The Tamron 17-50 non VC is a cracking little lens for the money - I loved my one but the upgrade bug got me and I got a Nikon 24-70 (hopefully moving towards full frame - well that's my excuse anyway) (new camera dear?) (what this old thing?)
Click to expand...

Dosnt the sigma 24-70 2.8 fit dx & fx too?
 
I have the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non vc and its a superb lens, build quality is solid, image quality is sharp even at 2.8.

Great lens and can't see me changing it for the canon as the detail captured with it on the 60D is fantastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top