My £500 Lens Budget (kit lens upgrade)

milster

milster

Messages
2,438
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
My main aim is to upgrade my kit lens for my d3100 (18-55).

I pretty much have my mind made up that I'm gonna get the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM which blows all my budget. At the back of my mind though I keep thinking to myself if I go for the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II VC I would still have some cash left for a 50mm 1.8 which I'd like to try for portraits (or would the Sigma be any good for portraits?). I'm not even sure if the two lenses would compliment each other? It's just that my brother-in-law has put me off Tamron a bit with his bad experience.

:shrug:

Any advise would be appreciated :thumbs:
 
sigma 17-70 ?

not 2.8 at all focal lengths, but apparently a very capable lens

Alternatively something secondhand ?
 
Get the tamron NON vc :)

I've used all sorts of sigmas and tamrons in the sort of 17-50/70 range and the tamron 17-50 non VC we had was the sharpest of sharp lenses!

That said, I like the sigmas due to the HSM.

I personally wouldn't bother with OS / VC at this length, but it totally depends on what shooting you're planning on. Plus the tamron VC is on the whole a worse lens in terms of IQ compared to the non-vc

The 50mm 1.8 is great for portraiture IMHO but the 35mm is also a good option on a crop camera
 
adamdavi3s said:
I personally wouldn't bother with OS / VC at this length, but it totally depends on what shooting you're planning on.
Click to expand...

I've got 5 weddings :eek: and 2 40th birthday parties to go to this year, I'm not doing any official photography or anything but I'd like to see if I can get some good photo's from them. Then it's gonna be a general walkabout lens really. :thumbs:
 
Hi Gary (Just noticed you're local!)

If you'd posted yesterday you could have had a crack with our non-vc but I've finally convinced the missus to move to the light side so we only have canon kit now I am afraid :(

But there are a couple of test shots from it on here:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=396058


My missus won't use anything other than Tamron! She loves them due to that one lens, and it was a cracker.
I personally have always preferred the sigmas with HSM as the tamron is noisy as hell!!

Regarding OS/ VC, personally I do not miss it at all since moving from a Sigma 17-70 OS to a canon 24-70L, yes its a much better lens on the whole but I really don't miss the OS.

I do however miss the OS at longer focal lengths (over 200mm)
 
Cheers Adam, I'm not able to view the classifieds yet (shouldn't be long now). I'm gonna go to Mifsuds either today or tomorrow to see if they have any of the Tamrons in stock. I know they have the Sigmas as I tried one a couple of weeks ago. I tried the 17-70 out while I was there last time but ruled it out because I wanted the constant 2.8. I might try taking some shots with my kit lens with the vr turned off see how I get on :)
 
I've used the 17-70 in various guises across Nikon and Canon for years and years but it was always the variable aperture that let it down for me!

The 17-50 is just as lush though :)

I'd give that a go, I think you'll be surprised how you don't miss it. Don't forget when you go to a 2.8 then you'll get faster shutter speeds anyway!

Here are the shots I had from the tamron:

100% Crop
 
Last edited:
Not sure I'd bother with a 50mm f1.8 if I had a standard zoom f2.8 ...

I don't actually consider the 50mm usable until f2.8 anyway for stills so bear that in mind that images will be soft! I've seen some really good examples of the tamron non vc
 
adamdavi3s said:
I've used the 17-70 in various guises across]

Here are the shots I had from the tamron:

100% Crop
Click to expand...

Thanks Adam, your right that's nice and sharp.

Phil Young said:
Not sure I'd bother with a 50mm f1.8 if I had a standard zoom f2.8 ...
I don't actually consider the 50mm usable until f2.8 anyway for stills so bear that in mind that images will be soft!
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking, I don't know how or why I got the idea in my head :D

formula400 said:
i've just got the sigma 17-50mm 2.8, only used a few times but i love it.
Click to expand...

I just keep coming back to this every time, just want to make the right choice, this will be my most expensive lens so I want to make the right decision :D
 
I had the Tamron when I had Nikon kit. Actually that and the 35mm were the only lenses I was planning on keeping since I still have not sold my D40 :D but the Tamron did eventually go when I bought a 16-50 for my Pentax.

It was my most used and most predictably good lens. Yes the AF speed and noise cannot match the Sigma HSM levels (I had the 50-150 HSM Sigma and it was near instant AF and almost silent and something to consider if you want something longer yet at 2.8) but pictures were nice sharp and with nice colours even at 2.8 .

It is a bit of a shame the VC version is not up to par, which was the main reason I swapped to Pentax for the IBIS.
 
dd1989 said:
I think there's a pretty decent Tokina in that zoom range too.
Click to expand...

The 16-50 does not have a motor ie it will not AF on the D3100. The Pentax 16-50 is similar to the Tokina and it is a great lens really but unless you find a bargain s/h not quite worth the premium over the Tamron.
 
Been to Mifsuds just now, tried the Sigma again and really liking that lens, super fast af :)

Unfortunately they didn't have the Tamron in stock. Now I don't know whether just to go ahead with the Sigma without trying the Tamron now everyone's been championing it :lol:

Trouble is the only other two shops near me (Jessops and London Camera Exchange) are rubbish for stocking stuff :(
 
Yeah, that's something that has slightly put me off the Tamron, the fact I keep reading the af is a bit slow. I'd be quite happy to try it for myself but now I've seen how quick the Sigma is I might not get over that, especially while I'm chasing the kids round the garden :)

Think I might bite the bullet and go and get the Sigma tomorrow :D
 
I've never regretted spending more than I could afford on proper glass. If I were you I would wait and save a bit more and get a used Nikon 17-55mm. These can be had for £600. I believe there is one in the classified section now, although nothing to do with me!
If you spend that money on 3rd party lenses you will always wonder and the Nikon will hold it's value.
 
Don't tell me that, I'll be after one of those next :lol:

I could probably just about stretch to £600 but I haven't seen them that cheap.
 
I've had a long hard think about this, and I think that is really stretching my budget. I also think as this is the first lens I'm spending this sort of money on a lens I like the 3 years warrenty Sigma give. Maybe I'm being too cautious but I'd hate to spend that much and it go wrong a couple of months down the line :shrug:

But on the other hand....... :lol:
 
decisions decisions !!!

I've got three Sigma lenses and rate them highly, however the thought of a good secondhand Nikon would be tempting
 
Yeah, its really tempting, but I think the standard I'm at as a relative newbie the Sigma will be a great for me.......but now the Nikon is lerking at the back of my head.

See, I can't even write a post without fighting with myself :lol:
 
Here's another vote against the Tamron. Unless they're changed something very recently, AF performance in even slightly low light is terrible. I've just given up on mine. Mine is the non-VC version and only bought a few months ago, by the way.
 
If the OP didn't have the D3100 and had something like a D90 it would make sense to suggest a Tamron without the built in motor. These are quite rare to find but depending on the camera's motor instead of the lens makes it a much better proposition.

Also what I did find out when I had the D7k is that the Tamron focused much faster with it than it did with my D40 so the body has a lot to do with the speed and accuracy of the AF too.

Having said that the Sigma is not a bad lens and maybe you won't even notice the difference, let alone that if you buy the Sigma and never get the Tamron you will never know the difference :p
 
vrapan said:
Also what I did find out when I had the D7k is that the Tamron focused much faster with it than it did with my D40 so the body has a lot to do with the speed and accuracy of the AF too.
Click to expand...

I'm using my Tamron on a 7D. Not exactly known for crappy AF performance. The Tamron is a turkey regardless of the body. As I've said before, I tried the kit lens that came with an 1100D and it outperformed the Tamron in AF. That's never a good advert for performance.
 
Well I didn't manage to get to buy the lens yesterday. I did try a couple of silly bids on eBay for a Nikon 17-55mm to no avail, you never know your luck :) but I've made up my mind the Sigma will be the one I go for in the next day or two (to coinside with my very long weekend :) ) although I may try a few more cheeky eBay bids in the meantime. ;)
 
Another one in the classifieds for 625!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top