Tamron 17-50 opinions on Nikon

S

Slipwave

Messages
382
Edit My Images
No
I recently sold my nikon 17-55 and bought an 18-70 to release some funds.
I am now looking to go back to a faster lens and was wondering if the tamron is as good as i have heard? Can I expect anywhere near the 17-55 quality and is it a better lens than the 18-70
Opinions appreciated
 
Chris,

I'm sure you have already but if you search for Tamron 17-50 in this forum you'll get a fair few (relevant) results.

FWIW - yes, it's got excellent IQ, not the build quality of the Nikon and yes it's better IQ than the 18-70 (IMHO).

Steve
 
Hi Chris, i had the Tamron and the nikon and IQ wise i could'nt tell them apart - the Tamron was that good,build quality on the nikon is the difference its much better than the Tamron but IMHO its not worth the premium over the cheaper lens.If i was buying again i'd go for the Tamron :thumbs:

Regards Lee.
 
Thanks Guys, tamron it is then. I had the 28-75 once and was very impressed with that.
 
very impressive lens yeah, take a look on my site at a quick review i have done

the only thing that lets it down overall is build quality, everything else is on bar but its not built to last, as i found out when i accidentally dropped mine at the weekend :(

nikon on the other hand (not that i dropped mine) looks and feels so much better build wise
 
whitey said:
very impressive lens yeah, take a look on my site at a quick review i have done

the only thing that lets it down overall is build quality, everything else is on bar but its not built to last, as i found out when i accidentally dropped mine at the weekend :(

nikon on the other hand (not that i dropped mine) looks and feels so much better build wise
Click to expand...


:agree: the lightweight build was the only reason I sold mine, optically I was pretty pleased with it. This was taken with it on my D70...

3155273800_8a3d866917.jpg
 
Must admit the Nikons build is in another league and if money was not an issue i'd choose it over the Tamron;)
 
well i just ordered the 17-50 (screwdrive version) so thanks for the input people
 
super lens.

sharp, lightweight and quick to focus. If third party small manufacturers like Tam/Sig can produce inexpensive constant aperture lenses like this for DX, it shows how little Nikon try to appease DX consumers. After all, if this had 'nikkor' on it and cost even £100 more, we'd all be praising it as the 'everyday hero'. Instead, there's the 17-55 which is heavier and three times the price. Built better but not three times better; sharper but not three times sharper.

If nikon churn out yet another 18-xx 3.5-5.6 zoom, I'll be the first one yawning..

In Nikon's defence, they have some corking lenses - the 35/1.8, 50/1.4, the 60 micro, the 85's, the 70-300VR, the 'holy trinity' 2.8's, the 300/4 etc - but they dilute their product lines with identikit 18mm's that make interested amateurs look to third-party alternatives like this.
 
danbroad said:
Built better but not three times better; sharper but not three times sharper.
Click to expand...

With lenses it the law of diminishing returns - the 70-200 VR is a cracker of a lens, it costs twice as much as an 80-200 f/2.8 and whilst it's better, it's not twice as good...
 
danbroad said:
Agreed, but if Tamron can mill a lens like this, Nikkor certainly can - and how it'd sell!
Click to expand...

The problem is that of consistency, it can be a lottery with 3rd party lenses getting a good one. It is not the cost of the glass in the Nikkor, but the cost of the glass they reject that makes them more expensive.

Personally after my experience with a 3rd party lens I would not buy another.

The Tamron in question is a good lens, and has received good reviews, however I have also read reports of people having poor copies of it, and having to exchange it.
 
The best lens I ever had was the 17-35 afs, the resolution on the D2X was simply astounding. In a moment of lunacy I traded it for the 17-55 and always felt I had made a big mistake. I also sold my 80-200 and 85mm 1.8 when I was contemplating a move to Canon around a year ago. Again both mistakes i regret, I had the 70-200vr for about a week, I bought it from a local paper for a price you would not believe and yes you are reading right £250! I sold it and bought the 17-35 with the huge profit i made from it!
The 80-200 afs was sharper in my opinion. I don't much care about big impressive "looking" lenses, if i want to spend a grand to look good i will buy a versace suit!
 
Slipwave said:
The best lens I ever had was the 17-35 afs, the resolution on the D2X was simply astounding. In a moment of lunacy I traded it for the 17-55 and always felt I had made a big mistake. I also sold my 80-200 and 85mm 1.8 when I was contemplating a move to Canon around a year ago. Again both mistakes i regret, I had the 70-200vr for about a week, I bought it from a local paper for a price you would not believe and yes you are reading right £250! I sold it and bought the 17-35 with the huge profit i made from it!
The 80-200 afs was sharper in my opinion. I don't much care about big impressive "looking" lenses, if i want to spend a grand to look good i will buy a versace suit!
Click to expand...

I made the mistake of not buying a 17-35 when they could be had for a reasonable price, just before the D3 came out.
 
like people have said it's about build quality and consistency, both good lenses from what i've heard :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top