Is the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC still the Nikon king of value?

Zarch

Zarch

Messages
1,038
Name
Mick
Edit My Images
Yes
3 years ago, after much discussion on here I plumped for the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC from the classifieds on my (then) D3100 to replace my kit lens.

Turned out to be a great decision as the lens has been tremendous for me. Sadly though, its developed a fault with the zoom ring (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/tamron-17-50-2-8-broken-can-no-longer-zoom-advice.548800/) and i'm not sure what the future holds for it.

Since purchasing the Tamron I have upgraded from D3100 > D7000 and wondered what my options are today if my 17-50 is beyond repair?

Are they still the same? Is the non-VC 2.8 stil the value king?

Last time I was in this position:
  • Whilst being brilliant, the Nikon 17-55 2.8 was too heavy/big and expensive.
  • The Sigma 2.8 didn't match the Tamron?
  • The Nikon 16-85 is a great lens, but constant 2.8 a miss? Prices seems to have dropped though.
  • Constant chatter about the VC version not matching the non-VC?
Are there any other contenders for my D7000 around the £200-£250 mark? Has much changed in 3 years?

Can I now benefit from having the in built focus motor on the D7000? Does that open up other options?

Any advice would be appreciated as i'm going to have stick my Nikon 18-200 on whilst all this is sorted!!!
 
Last edited:
chrism_scotland said:
Seems like you've covered all the main ones there! My personal preference for DX would have been the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS but if you've tried and not liked it v the Tamron then buy another Tamron!
Click to expand...
Thanks Chris.

I've not tried the Sigma, just recall comments and reviews. Also, i'm sure there was another 2.8 Sigma, but it wasn't constant 2.8 through the zoom range?
 
Zarch said:
Thanks Chris.

I've not tried the Sigma, just recall comments and reviews. Also, i'm sure there was another 2.8 Sigma, but it wasn't constant 2.8 through the zoom range?
Click to expand...

Theres a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5? Its meant to be good I had one years ago on a Sony body, think theres a new one now though.
 
I'd personally get another Tamron 17-50, I don't think it gets much better at the low price point on a Nikon. I've seen them go in the classifieds section for under £200, you really can't complain. Even a brand new one on *cough* panamoz is about £250.
 
Tamron 17-50 non VC is possibly the best value lens I've ever had. Sharp, light and a perfect partner to my d90. Genuinely don't know where you'd find better quality for the price.

I know the nikkor is "king" but it's at least twice as expensive and heavier.
 
Since getting my tamron non vc it does not come off the camera unless I need a longer zoom.

Against my 18-70,the results are much more sharper.
 
£85-£95 David
 
Slightly different, but the non VC 28-75 is just a lens I cant put down! Its size and quality just amazes me everytime and I'm guessing the 17-50 is the same.
 
Had the VC version in Pentax, Canon and Nikon types. Never had a complaint really. Could be slightly noisy when focusing and the VC can take longer to settle than the lens takes to focus. I used it the majority of the time with VC switched off but it was handy if needed (church hall with no flash rule, for example). I ended up changing to the Nikon version, I would definitely say the build quality is better but do not notice much if any difference in image quality and it is four times the price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top