Nikon 17-55 f2.8 on a D3100

J

Jez2011

Messages
621
Name
Jez
Edit My Images
No
Looking to upgrade to something a bit more flexible than the 35mm f1.8, and wondered if anyone is using this set up. Undecided between this and the Tamron 17-50 non-VC. Had a play with the 17-55 on a D3100 in Jacobs - wasn't bothered about the weight but such a large lens on a small body did look a little odd. Any comments/thoughts appreciated.
 
I was debating the same only last week, as well as the Sigma 17-50mm which gets pretty decent reviews, it was the one I was gonna go with I had a play with it in the shop, super fast and quite focusing, nice and sharp but in the end I decided to go with the Tamron 28-75mm as I very rarely use the lens at the wide end so I thought the extra reach would be good for me. Haven't had too much time to play with the Tamron but from what I have it's a very nice lens. As for weight I'm not too bothered by it and even have the Nikon 70-300mm which is a bit of a beast on my d3100, but I do have a grip on mine, I think I might find it a bit unbalanced else.
 
If it was me I'd go for the Tamron, the 17-55 is 200g heavier than your camera body and heavier than the 70-300 VR that Gary has on his D3100, making for quite a nose-heavy assembly. There's no doubting that the Nikon is a far sturdier lens but you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference image quality-wise between that and the Tamron.
 
The Nikon is definitely the best wide zoom you'll get and use. The Tamron is a good budget option but go with the best you can get, that way you're happily aiming for the best your gear allows.
 
Thanks for the replies. Looks like 2-1 in favour of the Tamron so far, any more for any more?
 
I have the 17-55 and have owned the tamron 17-50. IQ wise they are very close.Nikon is heavier and better built, but is twice the price and more.

Choice is yours, Tamron is a cracking little lens though.
 
milster said:
Have you looked at the Sigma as well? It's worth considering.
Click to expand...

I have in the past but it's not really in the running tbh, as it's £250 more than the Tamron with slightly worse optical quality (or at best the same) according to the reviews I've read.
 
I picked up a tamron 17-50 non vc on Friday from the classifieds. Very impressed with it. Got it for a good price too compared to the nikon! They come up reasonably frequently in the classifieds.
 
Last edited:
I find the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 a little too front heavy without a gripped DX body to balance it out. Have both the D3100 and D7000 - find the fit of the 17-55 and gripped D7000 fine for a day out - but wouldn't consider using it with the D3100.
 
I've used both the Tamron and the Nikon on the D3100 and D7000.

If you care at all about focus speed, get the Nikon. The Tamron is sloooooooooooooooooooooow, and does not track worth a damn.
IQ wise, they're near indistinguishable - if that's your primary consideration you may as well save some cash and get the Tamron.
I didn't have any issues with balance, but I tend to sit the centre of mass of camera + body in my left hand rather than trying to force the setup level with the right like most others do. Hell, I had a 70-200 on my D3100 without any issues.
 
ausemmao said:
I've used both the Tamron and the Nikon on the D3100 and D7000.

If you care at all about focus speed, get the Nikon. The Tamron is sloooooooooooooooooooooow, and does not track worth a damn.
IQ wise, they're near indistinguishable - if that's your primary consideration you may as well save some cash and get the Tamron.
I didn't have any issues with balance, but I tend to sit the centre of mass of camera + body in my left hand rather than trying to force the setup level with the right like most others do. Hell, I had a 70-200 on my D3100 without any issues.
Click to expand...

That's right, of you hold the setup correctly, it'll be just fine even on a smaller body. If you tend to hold the body only them it'll take but of getting used to. You're meant to have a hand under the lens really, ok I can't explain it now!
 
If you can afford the Nikon go for it really however the Tamron is smaller lighter much cheaper and has pretty great IQ, doubt will notice any difference.

However on lower end bodies AF is pretty slow.
 
Thanks for the further comments. IQ is the main consideration, I think I can live with the focus being a bit slower.
 
milster said:
Just think, the money you save one the Tamron you can spend on another lens..........That's what I did anyway :D
Click to expand...

Yeah was thinking I could get a decent Nikon flash with the difference or put it towards a Tamron/Sigma 70-200 f2.8 :)
 
Buy a used Nikon, best of both worlds. £550 should get you a minter....

Yep, IQ differences between it and the Tamron have to be searched long and hard for, but as a legacy lens (i.e one you'll keep as you progress through bodies, if you stay with DX that is) the Nikon will last the course and still be worth something at the end. I used the Tamron extensively for outdoor magazine work and it was a peach, but for everyday use the Nikon just has everything you need, typical of any pro-spec lens :)
 
Last edited:
Jez2011 said:
....wasn't bothered about the weight but such a large lens on a small body did look a little odd
Click to expand...

Not half as much as Sigma's Bigma (50-500) on a D40 :D
 
Buy mine, I don't wanna lose her but I'm buying a 24mm 1.4 for FF and sticking to my prime guns
 
I had the Nikon and the Tamron. IQ wise, they are very similar, but look closely and the Nikon is the best, especially at 2.8 and focus speed / noise ( there really isn't any).
But, the Nikon is a big heavy lens. If you're happy carrying around that lot all day, go for the Nikon.
You are also going to pay more than double for the Nikon, only you can answer if you can afford that.

They are both fine standard zooms, depends how strong you are feeling!

Allan
 
I have the Tamron 17-50mm (with built-in motor) non VC and the IQ is pretty good on my D7000.

I dont find the focusing that slow to be honest - seem about the same as my Nikon 18-200mm VR.

However i would say the nikon 17-50mm is better - focussing will be a little bit faster, however it is a lot more money.

If its within your budget - go for the nikon , otherwise go the tamron.

The reviews I read on the Sigma weren't that great, hence I opted for the Tamron.
 
Couldn't justify spending £1k on a new one but could afford a used one. Now leaning towards the Nikon esp as this bloke reckon's he's had 5 duff copies of the Tamron:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ga4T2uMI_g&feature=related

Really don't need the aggro of sending lens back if it turns out to be a duffer

Decisions, decisions

Maybe I'll stick with the 35mm and get a flash or telephoto zoom instead :bonk:
 
I've bought a mint one from the classifieds recently for under 180 pounds and couldn't be happier with it. Thats considerably cheaper than the Nikon and you'll be able to afford another speedlight +/- lens for the same price as the Nikon. Overall that'd make more difference to your photography.

IMHO!
 
Have been keeping an eye on the classifieds but think I would rather pay the £100 extra to get a new one with a 5 year warranty...
 
Bought my 17-50 Tamron from SRS 3 years ago, excellent lens and was spot on on the D40 as well as the D7k. Far as I know still works brilliantly on its second home. I wouldn't be too worried.
 
I have a minty 17-55 2.8 just up for sale if you are interested.
 
Thanks for the further /comments advice. Camera only comes out of its bag at the weekend and sometimes not even that often, so I'm thinking the Nikon is overkill really. If I was using it every day as a press/wedding photographer etc I'd definitely opt for the Nikon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top