17-55 2.8 nikon or 17-50 tamron

Rob_p

Rob_p

Messages
248
Edit My Images
No
Sounds like a ridiculous question from the title as the 17-55 f2.8 nikon is the clear choice. However i'm looking to upgrade my 18-70mm to a f2.8 zoom to take travelling. One day I will get the nikon but I think it's a bit too big and heavy to take travelling. I've heard great things about the tamrom 17-50 f2.8 (non vc)?

Apparently the new VC version is really soft but the old version can be had for little more than £200! Does this seem too good to be true? People with experience using this lens please give your opinions and examples where possible
 
I've owned both, yes the Nikon is the better lens, but the Tamron is optically pretty close.

Where it falls down is on build quality, it's very plasticky and the beauty ring on the front has a habit of working loose (easily fixed), but, as you say, it can be had for around £200.....
 
I haven't managed to break my tamron yet, and I give it a HARD life. It spent last sunday being spat and covered in freezing cold mud....

buy it, the pictures look the same as those out the back of the nikon...
 
Last edited:
Exactly as Graham said, tamron has decent IQ and not far off nikon, but the nikon is a solid old beast.
 
I've got the 17-55 2.8 Nikon and have traveled extensively with it on my D300. I've hiked the back country of Glacier National Park (MT), Waikiki Beach and climbed Diamond Head, Hawaii with it. I've taken it to Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, and Victoria, BC among others. It's heavy...but that lens is brilliant on a DX camera. (BTW, I'm 60...so no spring chicken and all these trips have been in the past 2.5 years.)

Only you can decide whether the bulk is worth it for the added build quality and IQ.
 
I've taken my Tamron travelling throughout the middle east, never had any problems. The only reason I would pay more is if the Nikon version is weather sealed, the Canon 17-55 isn't so I saw little point in spending an extra £500 just for IS.
 
Last edited:
Another point to consider is the weight - on a D300 or above the lens balances nicely, but it's one and a half times the weight of something like a D3100 body......
 
Another one to consider is the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 - better build than the Tamron, quieter autofocus but possibly a few £££ more.

I had the Sigma and loved it, not as good as the Nikkor image wise but almost. The Nikkor has a bit more range each end, but it's quite noticeably a bit heavier than the Tamron or the Sigma.

I have the Nikkor, but for travel I just use a 35mm f1.8
 
Thanks for advice so far, I plan on covering every focal length from 10.5mm - 200mm so I'm trying to balance weight, quality and price. I already have this range covered but am trying to upgrade within this as round the world trips don't happen too often. Yeah it does seem a good match for the D300..........humm
 
War zone? Nikon. Shooting cats in your back garden? Tamron.

Optically, they're so so so close. It's all in the build quality and AF speed. The Tamron is an absolute steal, as long as it isn't the VC version...

I'm saving for the Nikon, because I'm near enough going to a war zone.
 
Adam_M said:
War zone? Nikon. Shooting cats in your back garden? Tamron.

Optically, they're so so so close. It's all in the build quality and AF speed. The Tamron is an absolute steal, as long as it isn't the VC version...

I'm saving for the Nikon, because I'm near enough going to a war zone.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hchGoXh0ADw

This is as close to a war zone as my work takes me ;) you can see it in shot a few times...

Rob_p said:
Any decent sample shots you can post? sounds good
Click to expand...

anything shot with a wide lens on my site: www.itsdave.net
 
I can vouch for the Tamron, I've owned the Canon version before and it's a cracker of a lens. Compact, with great colours and contrast - and sharp wide open. The only negative point is the sample variation, you sometimes need to try more than one before you get a sharp one.
 
Adam_M said:
Nice! how did you shoot that video? reminds me of something I once saw of a war photographers documentary that I can never remember the name of. But with less bullets and more mud.
Click to expand...

hah, yeah, the film is 'war photographer' featuring Nachtwey, and is partly what gave me the idea :D

it's a mini video camera cable tied to my flash, lol.
 
Last edited:
itsdavedotnet said:
hah, yeah, the film is 'war photographer' featuring Nachtwey, and is partly what gave me the idea :D

it's a mini video camera cable tied to my flash, lol.
Click to expand...

I hate my memory, I always feel awful that I forget his name. I really respect him, but I'm utterly pathetic with names.

I'm going to have to watch the movie again now, for, err, punishment? yeah, that's it.

How does the Tamrons AF hold up for you Dave? it seems like you've put it through some challenging environments, AF speed has always been a killer for me with my Sigma 24-60mm, and thus it stays in the bag 99% of the time.
 
Adam_M said:
I hate my memory, I always feel awful that I forget his name. I really respect him, but I'm utterly pathetic with names.

I'm going to have to watch the movie again now, for, err, punishment? yeah, that's it.

How does the Tamrons AF hold up for you Dave? it seems like you've put it through some challenging environments, AF speed has always been a killer for me with my Sigma 24-60mm, and thus it stays in the bag 99% of the time.
Click to expand...

Fine in all honesty... never really had an issue. I've used the nikon 17-55 quite a bit, but never in anywhere really nasty, but in my experience, the tamron's fine and definitely comparable :) There's something about the nikon that I'm not a fan of, too, can't quite place it.

In all honesty, if there was any difference in picture quality in real terms, I'd buy the nikon in a heartbeat, this is my most used lens that earns me a living. Tempted to buy a second tamron as a backup / for remote camera use tbh.
 
re this lens....
would it be wise for swaping Nikkor 30mm 2.0 to this Tamron ?

Im looking for 17-50ish 2.8 lens but cant afford Nikkor one:(
 
itsdavedotnet said:
Fine in all honesty... never really had an issue. I've used the nikon 17-55 quite a bit, but never in anywhere really nasty, but in my experience, the tamron's fine and definitely comparable :) There's something about the nikon that I'm not a fan of, too, can't quite place it.

In all honesty, if there was any difference in picture quality in real terms, I'd buy the nikon in a heartbeat, this is my most used lens that earns me a living. Tempted to buy a second tamron as a backup / for remote camera use tbh.
Click to expand...

The fact it makes people look really weird and flat on the wide end if you're doing a shot of a group of people up close by any chance?

Good to know the Tamron holds up. Hmm. Decisions decisions...
 
I bought the Tamron for about £180 a few weeks ago and so far I am very impressed with the sharpness. A bit more-than-expected vignetting on low-light images at the widest end though in my opinion. Still a good value lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top