Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 VC Di II (NIKON) ?

[Talon]

Hi folks,

I'm looking at making one final purchase for the moment and need some advice.

I want to replace the Nikon kit lens with a decent f/2.8 lens and the Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 VC Di II looks like it might fit the bit.

However I've noticed in a few posts people commenting on VC version not being as good as the non-VC version, why is this ? I'll be mounting it to a D7000 body, any other lenes under £500 I should be considering?

Thanks for any help

 

[Frobius]

I'll be keeping an eye on this as I'm looking at replacing my 18-105 with one of these. One of the reviews said that it was fine as long as you give it a second with the shutter release half pressed to allow the VR (or VC in this case) to settle down. What I've not found is anyone stating if this is the only issue or that even with the VC settled down or even off, does the non VC version still out perform the VC by a significant enough margin to forego the VC.

 

[Lindsay D]

Well I tried that lens recently and I wasn't impressed. The non-VC version is cracking though, if you can live without image stabilization (which I can't). In the end I spent a ton of money on the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS and it's absolutely awesome.

 

[ausemmao]

I have the non VC, it's a fantastic lens. It's as sharp as anything I've seen off the nikon equivalent, the autofocus is very quick although noisy if you're used to SWM lenses.

I tried the VC version instore after I got the non VC. It seems pretty much as sharp if you get a good copy (dunno how much copy variation there is). It's a fair bit bigger and the VC only activates on focus, so not sure how it handles for video.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

I had the VC and I hated it. I've said it before and ill say it again, softest copy of a lens I've ever owned

 

[Talon]

I'm going to sell my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro to aid funding this but I still don't want to blow then bank on a Nikkor or even the Sigma as I also want to buy a Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 later in the year.

Just don't know if I should take a punt on the VC version, I mainly use the camera handheld so VR/VC/OS really does help.

 

[cherokee1111]

get the Sigma 17-50 f2.8, different class to the Tamron- more expensive yes but no-where near the £1000 for the overrated Nikkor 17-55 with no stabilisation.
OSD has it for £444 I believe which is a no-brainer for what you get at that price

 

[specialman]

get the Sigma 17-50 f2.8, different class to the Tamron- more expensive yes but no-where near the £1000 for the overrated Nikkor 17-55 with no stabilisation.
OSD has it for £444 I believe which is a no-brainer for what you get at that price

The Sigma seems to be one of its best lenses for crop cameras according to reviews, but I strongly doubt that it's in a different class; as with many Siggy lenses, corner sharpness is reported as fair-to-middling (poor wide open) until it's stopped down a few notches. OS on a lens that short is a nice addition but you're paying what, £150 for OS over the Tamron 17-50mm (non-VC)? The question is; do you need IS/VC/OS/VR on a lens that short? Good technique will enable you to shoot at 1/20th on a light lens like the Tamron DiII so is that extra expense required?

As for the Nikon, it'd be interesting to see if it (the Sigma) matches the Nikon's party piece, it's build quality; there are probably only a handful of lenses around that are as solidly built in NAF fit. Is the Sigma weathersealed? Does it have full-time manual focus override? I do agree though that at full RRP the Nikon is mighty expensive, but you get what you pay for as they say.....

 

[Dr_O]

I'm going to sell my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro to aid funding this but I still don't want to blow then bank on a Nikkor or even the Sigma as I also want to buy a Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 later in the year.

Just don't know if I should take a punt on the VC version, I mainly use the camera handheld so VR/VC/OS really does help.

The VC version is not as good as the non-VC version. Tamron changed the optics in addition to VC and really made a hash of what was a great lens.

I'd buy the non-VC version as I don't think much of stabilisation at shorter focal lengths but I guess if you're shooting a lot of static subjects in lower light it can be handy.

If you need stabilisation and want fast glass then the new Sigma is the only other option at these lengths. Optically it's as good as the old Tamron but it does have OS and focuses faster- all assuming Sigma put it together right

 

[specialman]

The VC version is not as good as the non-VC version. Tamron changed the optics in addition to VC and really made a hash of what was a great lens.

It's a lot bigger too (the VC version that is). Hasn't got that compact feel that makes the Tamron (and probably the Sigma) such a nice lens to use as a walkabout.

......all assuming Sigma put it together right

Hmmmmm, indeed. Will have a look at this Sigma at Focus tomorrow if it's there......

 

[kartracer]

If you need VR the Nikon 16-85mm is supposed to be a very good lens.

 

[MindofMel]

I have the 17-50 2.8 VC on my nikon d300 = its mind boggling sharp @ 4 - 8 and at 2.8 it's gorgeous - tack sharp on eyes but soft enough on skin etc. Very nice bokeh aswell.. I feel like i got every penny. Built like a tank aswell!! I bought mine @ Jacobs Digital and wrangled them into throwing in a free UV filter

 

[Stu Meech]

Not tried the VC version (do hear it's softer in comparison to the non-VC) but the aforementioned non-VC is really nice - sharp as you like and resolves loads of detail on my d300s.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

but no-where near the £1000 for the overrated Nikkor 17-55 with no stabilisation.

I've tried all of these lenses, and I've owned the VC Tamron (which I hated, it was soft and I'm sorry but no it's not "built like a tank") which I sold after using it on two jobs, and I currently own the 17-55mm 2.8 Nikon. It's not over-rated, it's sharper, faster to focus, more accurate to focus, and really is "built like a tank".

You pay your money...you get what you pay for.

 

[boyfalldown]

get the Sigma 17-50 f2.8, different class to the Tamron- more expensive yes but no-where near the £1000 for the overrated Nikkor 17-55 with no stabilisation.
OSD has it for £444 I believe which is a no-brainer for what you get at that price

Its certainly not overrated you do get what you pay for with that lens. I'm confused as to why no image stabalisation is a big issue at those short focal lengths?

2nd hand mint condition versions of the Nikkor represent a serious bargin

 

[cherokee1111]

I've owned the VC Tamron (which I hated, it was soft and I'm sorry but no it's not "built like a tank") I currently own the 17-55mm 2.8 Nikon. It's not over-rated, it's sharper, faster to focus, more accurate to focus, and really is "built like a tank".

I agree the nikkor is better than the Tamron, I think you mis-read what I said, I didn't compare it to the Tamron I just said it was over rated for £1000, if you want to compare like for like compare it to the Canon 17-55IS most reviews will err on the Canon side and its a lot cheaper

Its certainly not overrated you do get what you pay for with that lens. I'm confused as to why no image stabalisation is a big issue at those short focal lengths?

2nd hand mint condition versions of the Nikkor represent a serious bargin

see the answer above, second hand prices for the Nikkor just bring it down to the price it should be in my very humble opinion- I like Nikon, in fact I love Nikon and if the 17-55 was waaayyyy better than anything else I would have one, but after 2 soft copies (well they were as good as the 16-85 at £400) I opted for the Sigma 17-50 which is getting test results better than some primes
However its all down to what copy you have and like.

Sorry OP for going slightly off topic

 

[Mahoneyd187]

I agree the nikkor is better than the Tamron, I think you mis-read what I said, I didn't compare it to the Tamron I just said it was over rated for £1000, if you want to compare like for like compare it to the Canon 17-55IS most reviews will err on the Canon side and its a lot cheaper

It's alot of money, so expensive yes, but you said it was over rated, and it isn't, it's a fantastic lens and will be for a lot longer than a third party lens....

Unless you're referring to a test where the Canon lens and Nikon lens are fitted to the exact same camera body then I'm sorry but I can't take that statement seriously. If such a review exists, I'd love to read it.

The 17-55IS Canon lens isn't an L lens is it? So not a reflection of L lens professional build quality, whereas the Nikon 17-55 is in the nikon pro line, and is built as such. There-in, lies the price difference

 

[Frobius]

So is there something somewhere that says that the new Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS is as sharp and contrasty as the Nikon, just minus a bit of the build quality? This assuming of course you GED a good copy - which if buying new should be simple enough.

If it's really that good, I'll get one!

 

[cherokee1111]

It's alot of money, so expensive yes, but you said it was over rated, and it isn't,

Oh Dear, sorry, cant do the "I say it isn't you say it is" scenario, remember I said it's in my opinion it's over rated for a £grand and I'm not alone, but let's agree to disagree amicably

 

[cherokee1111]

So is there something somewhere that says that the new Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS is as sharp and contrasty as the Nikon, just minus a bit of the build quality? This assuming of course you GED a good copy - which if buying new should be simple enough.

If it's really that good, I'll get one!

have a look at this page http://www.lenstip.com/256.4-Lens_review-Sigma_17-50_mm_f_2.8_EX_DC_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html the rest of the review is pretty good as well, it's not perfect, no lens is but it's VFM strictly IMO

 

[Lindsay D]

So is there something somewhere that says that the new Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS is as sharp and contrasty as the Nikon, just minus a bit of the build quality? This assuming of course you GED a good copy - which if buying new should be simple enough.

If it's really that good, I'll get one!

My Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS is outstanding. It easily matches my expensive primes for sharpness, colour rendition etc. From what I've seen there is very little copy variance with the Sigma so all should be good. The Sigma is well built, mostly plastic but that's what I was after as weight is a consideration for me. I did compare it to Canon's 17-55 f2.8 (which is about £900) and the Sigma is on par or even exceeded it for sharpness, was a bit smaller and lighter, had comparable build quality and was £300 less, and the Sigma came with a padded case and lens hood.

Apart from that the other one I would recommend is the Tamron non-VC which is only about £340 and is very sharp and lightweight. VC/OS is not essential on a lens of this focal length but I'd rather have it than not have it (because I'm small and not brilliant at hand holding) which is why I got the Sigma in the end.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

Oh Dear, sorry, cant do the "I say it isn't you say it is" scenario, remember I said it's in my opinion it's over rated for a £grand and I'm not alone, but let's agree to disagree amicably

No test on the same body then to back up the claim of the canon being better? Didn't think so...

Of course, more than happy to leave it there, there's nothing to back up your claim so we have no option

 

[woof woof]

as with many Siggy lenses, corner sharpness is reported as fair-to-middling (poor wide open) until it's stopped down a few notches.

Whenever I see this sort of comment I wonder what people expect.

If you are using a wide aperture things in the corners are possibly going to be outside of the DoF and of course this will improve as the lens is stopped down and DoF increases Ye cann-nee change the laws of fizziks.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

Whenever I see this sort of comment I wonder what people expect.

If you are using a wide aperture things in the corners are possibly going to be outside of the DoF and of course this will improve as the lens is stopped down and DoF increases Ye cann-nee change the laws of fizziks.

Even if your subject...and focus, are purposefully in the corner of the frame? They will be within the dof surely if the focus is correct?

 

[cherokee1111]

No test on the same body then to back up the claim of the canon being better? Didn't think so...

Of course, more than happy to leave it there, there's nothing to back up your claim so we have no option

my god your obnoxious!:thumbsdown: you've twisted and misquoted yet again......and ignored the link that mentioned the Canon:bang:
I give up with people like you who are spoiling for arguments as opposed to discussion. Goodbye!

 

[specialman]

Whenever I see this sort of comment I wonder what people expect.

If you are using a wide aperture things in the corners are possibly going to be outside of the DoF and of course this will improve as the lens is stopped down and DoF increases Ye cann-nee change the laws of fizziks.

I don't buy that argument. You made a sweeping statement about the Sigma being streets ahead of the competition so you are gonna get doubted.....

 

[Mahoneyd187]

my god your obnoxious!:thumbsdown: you've twisted and misquoted yet again......and ignored the link that mentioned the Canon:bang:
I give up with people like you who are spoiling for arguments as opposed to discussion. Goodbye!

Oh stop being sensitive. So far you've said the nikon is over rated, which in my opinion it isn't, but then you wanted to compare like-for-like with the Canon and pointed out the fact its cheaper. It's not like for like, the Canon isn't a pro zoom but the Nikon is. The pro zooms are always more expensive because of their build quality. There's really nothing else to say, buy what you can afford,as long as its a good copy,nobody will be able to tell what your shots were taken with anyway

 

[Talon]

I didn't want to kick off a flame war.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

Sorry for going off topic.

If your budget is circa £500 then you're very very almost in the Nikon territory, I got a mint 2nd hand one for £520. That's basically what I'd recommend based on my own experiences.

I hate having to mess about with bad copies of lenses, my VC Tamron was awful and its pretty much put me right off 3rd party lenses

Good luck with whatever you get and enjoy using it