Nikon Dx midrange zoom

Spoony

Spoony

Messages
594
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Can anyone give me some advice please, have been reading reviews all afternoon I am going to buy a midrange zoom

I was set on a second hand nikon 17-55 but then read that it's old tech and would be better off with a sigma 17-50 and just need to make a decision.

So what do I do go for the beast which is Nikon or the new sigma (I have discounted the Tamron as I want stabilisation)
 
If you want stabilisation then you have counted out the Nikkor.

Tamron do have a stabilised 17-50, it has the VC initials added to it.
if you really want to do some reading try search for which Tamron is sharper, VC or Non VC as its an often debated topic.
I'm not sure the Sigma is constant f/2.8 (happy to be proved wrong on that)
but the Nikkor & Tamron are....

i have both the Nikkor & the Tamron & the Nikkor Blitzes the Tamron in focus speed. are you shooting moving or static subjects?
do you need the solid build of the Nikkor or are you happy with the much more plasticky Tamron?
:shrug:

only you can really answer those points :thumbs:

the Nikkor is a bargain on the used market as they are still around £1049 new & older ones come up used around the £500 mark every few weeks :thumbs:
 
Sigma do a constant f2.8 aperture 17-50mm with OS. Tamron do a constant f2.8 17-50mm with and I believe still without VC. The Nikon 17-55 is constant f2.8 aperture but does not have VR. (VR, OS and VC are all forms of image stabilisation). VR is less relevant on mid range zooms imo/e but nonetheless may be useful for some circumstances.

All of the above lenses have good or even excellent IQ. The Nikon is built like a tank (and weighs almost as much ;)) and to me has the edge, but that is purely my personal view.

As Adam states the Nikkor blitzes the other two when it comes to AF. The things to consider are how important is extremely fast and accurate AF, weight and VR ...
 
Whereabouts in Hampshire are you?
i'm based in Farnborough right up there by the Surrey border.
if you're close enough you are welcome to come & try my Nikkor & Tamron.
i've not used either since i bought a D3 last year & now a D800 :bonk:
 
Had the Tamron and upgraded to Nikon, night and day comparison, but the Nikon is a lot heavier if you need to consider weight...
 
Tirpitz said:
Whereabouts in Hampshire are you?
i'm based in Farnborough right up there by the Surrey border.
if you're close enough you are welcome to come & try my Nikkor & Tamron.
i've not used either since i bought a D3 last year & now a D800 :bonk:
Click to expand...

Might take you up on that, I am only down the road in Bordon.

I didn't realise the nikon didn't have vr, I don't think it would be a big loss not to have but I do find myself shooting a low speeds at times.

The weight is not really an issue, but saying that it would be a walkabout lens!

I would get one second hand if I was to buy the nikon, I was set on getting it until I read a review about how it's not as good as the sigma on new bodies, as the sigma is new and was designed for modern dx cameras.

Hence my asking for advice, which as always is greatly received.

But from you guys I get the impression that the nikon is still the best, albeit heavy.
 
Tamron 17-50 2.8 is about the best value lens you can buy new today I'd say!
 
Depends of you need a lens with near instant focus or not.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top