50mm 1.8 & 17-80 or Tamron 17-50, Nikon

S

samems

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,005
Edit My Images
No
Now that i have decided to keep my D90 (For now) i am wondering wether or not to get a Tamron 17-50 to replace the 50mm and the 18-70 i have as this will free up some weight in the bag and have a lens that combines a good combination of features.

What do you lot think?

50mm 1.8 is supposed to be awesome from 2.8 onwards so another reason why maybe a Tamron would be a good buy? 18-70 is a cracker of a lens but i dont want to be carrying lots of lenses.

Would it be a good move to sell the 50mm and 18-70 and then buy a Tamron 17-50?

I would be using it to take pics of the kids, holidays, out and about etc
 
I don't have a Nikon but my wife uses the Tamron 17 - 50 with her Canon 500D and the results are very good. My only reservation is that it is a little on the "short" side for a walkabout lens. I am tempted to have a look at the Sigma 17-70 which is that bit longer and also has a near macro facility.
 
I have the 50mm F1.4 and Tamron 17-50 F2.8.

Both are excellent lenses - but as mentioned the 17-50mm can fall short sometimes, depending on what you are shooting.

My walkabout lens is the 18-200mm.

Would I sell the 50mm? No way. Primes just cannot be beaten. :)
 
So, what to do then. Sell the 2 and buy a Tamron?

Maybe i should keep the both of them
 
Last edited:
samems said:
So, what to do then. Sell the 2 and buy a Tamron?

Maybe i should keep the both of them
Click to expand...

I have never used the Tamron on a Nikon body, but have had 3 now in Canon mount and have had the 18-70 on a D80.

The 18-70 was no way near the Tamrons I have had, I can remember finding the Tamron on a 350D better than the 18-70 on the D80.

Problem for you though is that the Tamron is actually slightly heavier than the 18-70, so while you will gain in IQ you won't really have any improvement on the weight you carry, especially with the big, heavy D90.
 
I would say if the only reason is to save weight, the change is not worth it. (youll be saving yourself only about 100g)

Would definitely keep the prime, and would change the 18-70 only if you want / need a faster lens - or a lens with VR if you want the 17-50 vr.
 
Well, difference between an xxxD model and the D90 is over 200g. 50mm Canon is lighter too so overall it would be a fair bit lighter?

Anyway, after much dithering i have decided to sell the whole lot and look for a 500D or 550D with a 50mm
 
What about the nikon d5xxx or d3xxx series cameras - that would mean you could keep your lenses?
 
I owned both and rate both highly. For you the advantage of the zoom with the 17-50 may swing it for what you need it for. Especially getting good shots on holiday with the kids etc, you probably won't always have the luxury of moving yourself around as you would with the 50. It is a little bigger but I think you'll be happy.

I loved both lenses and I'm only suggesting the 17-50 based on your usage, otherwise I'd say have both! Also the 2.8 on the tamron will work out way better than the half decent zoom you have already. Really when I switched to digital my first load of pro work was with the tamron 17-50 as the short wide. I wouldnt have achieved that with the Nikon zoom, as decent as it is.
 
Last edited:
If you think you can't afford to keep the 50 as well then go for it! It pains me to say it but you'll get more use out of the 17-50
 
db247 said:
If you think you can't afford to keep the 50 as well then go for it! It pains me to say it but you'll get more use out of the 17-50
Click to expand...

Thats what i was thinking. It is more flexible. VR or non VR?
 
Mine didn't have VR and I didn't know they brought one out but the 2.8 more than makes up for it. Better out of focus bokeh with the wider aperture as well as lower light capability. So I didn't miss (or at the time even see a need) for VR.
 
Tamron is a beast of a lend though.

What about VC or non VC?
 
I would rather go with hands on examples than an old review.The earlier versions of the vc were noted as being softer but tamron rectified this.As I say the images speak for themselves.Images in that review look awful certainly not what I get with my version.
 
Last edited:
Here's a 100% f2.8 crop from a non VC Tamron...

IMG_4640-t.jpg


Personally even IF the VC version is a little softer (I'm not saying it is but lets just pretend it is for a moment) I think I'd consider it as IS comes in very useful and sharpness is often overrated :D

Stewart, at 100% there seems to be something not quite right with those shots. Could it be that they're a little over sharpened? Sorry if I'm wrong.
 
No its flickr..loaded on to photobucket they look better tbh. No sharpening as straight out of camera.
 
Your examples look good Stuart, personally though I wouldn't risk it - there are way too many out there that have a soft copy. Maybe Tamron did rectify this I don't know, I would have to have a very long play with one though before buying.

Alan: Don't mistake me for a pixel peeper, I do agree that looking at 100%, 100% of the time is a bit extreme, but a soft image is a deletable image.
 
Fully understand what your saying Phil..I have used a non vc and also own the vc which to my eyes is as sharp as the non vc I used.Like you I am not a pixel peeper and only done these crops when a similar question came up here and also on another forum.I am more than happy with the copy I have and certainly dont hesitate to use it wide open for fear of a soft image.I was able to have a long play with this one and also said I could return it if not happy but no chance of that its a great lens.Stopped down it produces fantastic images.:cool:
Another at 2.8


DSC_5112 by StuartHowePhotography, on Flickr

f4.5

DSC_4531 by StuartHowePhotography, on Flickr

2.8 again


DSC_4529 by StuartHowePhotography, on Flickr

f5.6


DSC_4584 by StuartHowePhotography, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
StuartH said:
No its flickr..loaded on to photobucket they look better tbh. No sharpening as straight out of camera.
Click to expand...

Photobucket is better, my God! flickr must be bad :D All things are relative I suppose but I'm embarrassed to see what Photobucket does to my shots :gag: :D
 
I got the Tamron (non VC) as a low cost option for doing a friends wedding last year but found it a great all rounder.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Photobucket is better, my God! flickr must be bad :D All things are relative I suppose but I'm embarrassed to see what Photobucket does to my shots :gag: :D
Click to expand...

:lol:I find alot of shots on flickr look over sharpened but when uploaded to PB they look fine?:thinking:
 
I've got a vc version - as far as i couldtell every bit as good as the non-vc when i compared in the shop.
f2.8 is good.
f2.8 + vr is awesome!
 
I've had both...sold the VC for the non-VC...Much better and consistent on my D7000...

But have to say, the Nikon 24-70 is much better again :p Thought the Tamron 17-50 non-vc on Nikon is a cracking bargain...
 
samems said:
Anyway, after much dithering i have decided to sell the whole lot and look for a 500D or 550D with a 50mm
Click to expand...

If you do go ahead, try and get the body with the IS kit lens, it weighs almost nothing and has very good IQ, just a 50mm on crop would be quite limiting.

Can't remember if I ever posted this here, but this is kit lens on an EOS 500D.

7475115894_fd9cd1129f_b.jpg
 
StuartH said:
Stunning shot Dave!
Click to expand...

Thanks Stuart, the weather played well on that walk a few weeks ago. It was that deep golden sunset, made all the colours really nice.

The IS kit is capable of pretty sharp IQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top