Tamron 17-50 vc v's nikon 17-55

D

Dan74

Messages
678
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys
Anyone had any experience with the tamron compared to the nikon
I'm liking the price of the tamron but will it compete with the nikon optically?
Buying this range lens for gig stuff so will be wide open and just gt rid of a similar range sigma as it was too soft
Any Info appreciated
 
Yes, I had the non-VC Tamron and replaced it with the Nikon. Optically there's not a lot in it, however the Nikon is leagues ahead in terms of build quality. The Tamron feels very cheap and plasticky whereas the Nikon is a proper, heavy duty piece of pro kit.

Having said that, the Nikon is three times the price of the Tamron so ......:shrug:
 
Hired a 17-55mm for the week when doing some event photography, great lens, but much bigger than the Tamron (I have the non-VC version). Build is better and it looks awesome but in terms of IQ, there's not much in it TBH, well, not £600 worth.

I've read a few things that say the new Vc version isn't as optically good as the previous versions. Don't know how much mileage there in this. I saw one (a VC) in a shop the other day and it's bigger than my mkII, or at least it looked bigger on the shelf, so don't know if they've fiddled with the optics when the VC was introduced. Finish looks better on the VC.
 
I think the VC uses 72mm filters, whereas the non-VC uses 67mm. So the VC is most likely bigger. Went for the non-VC as I felt the cost of the 17-55mm was not justified. However, if it was purely for professional use the 17-55mm might be more robust. Have also seen reports that the VC is not as good optically. My non-VC was made in Japan.
 
Had the 17-55, a very nice lens, very good IQ and almost strong enough to knock nails in walls!!!! I then bought the Tamron 28-75 2.8 (similar to 17-50 but obviously longer). Did some quick tests in the few days I had both, thinking if Tamron was rubbish I would sell bit results were similar.

Some shots the Nikon seemed better, others the Tamron seemed better. Very little to choose, maybe the Nikon was slightly better wide open but the Tamron better at f8, but in all honesty, too close to call. For the price though, the Tamron wins hands down. Yes, the Nikon probably is better, but £200 opposed to £600... one winner!
 
It's worth noting that the non vc version of the Tamron is supposed to be better in image quality terms than the vc. Some tests have indicated that the non-vc Tamron beats both Nikon and Canon's efforts in terms of image quality, but views differ.

I'm on my second Tamron 17-50mm now. Smashed the first one and bought another without hesitation. I couldn't recommend it enough (as you can probably guess).
 
I had both, Tamron was the non VC version. IQ was very similar, in fact out at the edges at F2.8 the Tamron was sharper sometimes. I sold the Tamron and kept the Nikon in the end because the Nikon just produced nicer looking shots overall.
Was it worth 3 times the price? Well it was better made, images had a nicer look to them and it will stand serious use and last for ever, so, yes.
Allan
 
i bought the 17-55 today after playing with both for a while in the store ....not going on iq just on how they felt on the body the nikon is miles better (obviously) the tamron felt cheap and nasty to me and the focus rings constant movement when focusing is a no no and the noise it makes is terrible
 
Good choice. I also found my 17-55 balanced well with my D300. Something else to consider
Allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top