Tamron or Nikon?

allanm

allanm

Messages
3,727
Name
Allan
Edit My Images
No
I have a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Its a beautiful lens and I am impressed with just how light and versatile it is, and of course, with the results it gives.

I am thinking of upgrading to the Nikon equivalent ( 17-55 f2.8)
Apart from an extra 5mm reach and it being substantially more expensive than the Tamron, is it a substantially better lens? What are the benefits of the Nikon over the Tamron lens.

Or should I just save the money and stick with what I have?

Allan
 
Stick with what you have the Tamron is an excellent lens if you get a good copy.

There is lots of reports that image quality of the Nikon 17-55mm is only slightly better.

In favor of the 17-55mm is the build quality is top notch it really is a solid lens.

But i personally think 17-55mm it well overpriced, save your money.
 
That's what I heard. I don't really know how the quality of the tamron differs, I assume I have a good one though. I was thinking of selling it and took a few sample piccys this morning. (now on my Flickr) they look pretty good to me but I've never used the Nikon version to compare.
I might just save my money!
Allan
 
allanm said:
That's what I heard. I don't really know how the quality of the tamron differs, I assume I have a good one though. I was thinking of selling it and took a few sample piccys this morning. (now on my Flickr) they look pretty good to me but I've never used the Nikon version to compare.
I might just save my money!
Allan
Click to expand...

IIRC you bought that tamron off me, and it is indeed a very sharp copy.

Stick with what you have got
 
had both, both very good optically with the Nikon trouncing the build quality of the Tamron

that aside not much difference, I am looking to go back to the Nikon verson in the future however for that reason alone
 
OK, I'm a canon user, but I think the comparison between the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon 17-55 is much like the comparison to the Nikon 17-55.

I want a lens in that range that is F2.8. I have been tempted by the Tamron a couple of times however it is the asthetics that put me off. I had a Tamron 28-75 which was really sharp, however I hated the fact the autofocus moved the exterior of the lens. This and the general feel of the lens is what puts me off.

IN short, if you are only interested in the optics then you will vee virtually no difference - if you want a lens that is even nicer to use (Inportant to me, not as much to others) then start looking at the Nikon.
 
I personally think Nikon need to update this lens.

Bring out a 16-70mm VR II F2.8G on the same build quality as the 16-85mm and im sold.
 
RichardtheSane said:
IN short, if you are only interested in the optics then you will vee virtually no difference - if you want a lens that is even nicer to use (Inportant to me, not as much to others) then start looking at the Nikon.
Click to expand...

I think that's a very fair summary.

The money difference is going in the AF-S motor and build quality, not optical performance.
 
Monkey said:
IIRC you bought that tamron off me, and it is indeed a very sharp copy.

Stick with what you have got
Click to expand...

You're quite right, I did buy it off you, and it is a nice sharp lens. Looks like I will be keeping it, the build quality is pretty good and I dont need the AFS motor ( thanks for the input there Andy) but it would be nice to compare the two otherwise the grass might always seem greener!
I might try one out at Jessops if they have one in stock......

Allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top