Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II as a viable walk round?

Hi,

I'm new to the forum and actually got the decision the buy a D80 within the following month (currently use nondslr-OLY 740, used Canon EOS Elan 15 years ago !).

I consider myself as serious, multi-decade experience enthusiast, and would be interested mainly in landscape, people and occasional close up/macro.

After reading the very positive (grade 10 of 10) in slrgear I wonder wheter to pick the above Tamron (+additional 50/70~ 180/200 zoom) instead of the D80 kit.

1. What do you think?
2. Has anybody used it? your feedback +samples more than welcome
.3. What will be the recommended complement for this lens?

Thanks a lot!

--
Regards,

Michael Badt

It along with the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC get very good reviews... but with the caveat of much higher sample variation. With either I'd try to by locally or somewhere online you know you'll have hassle-free return/exchange. Also it seems the best way to get a sharp copy is to buy one and if it is soft send it back to the mfg for calibration. It takes a couple of weeks but the results have proven very good (much easier for a tech in a shop to dial in a lens opposed to the guy on the assembly line).

Having bought the D70 with kit lens and now having the D200 (husband has the D70+lens) I bought the Tamron and I am very happy with it. Do make sure, as the previous poster suggests, that you buy it from somewhere that you can deal with reliably in case you get a bad one!
--
Sue
http://www.suewilson.co.uk

'The beauty is in the walking; we are betrayed by destinations.' Gwyn Thomas

Thanks all,

Living in Israel, I probably won't be able to find locally in stock. That will have to wait for my next trip to the US.

Any idea about the "complemnt" longer focal zoom?

--
Regards,

Michael Badt

For the price I dont think you can go wrong, I hear about sample variations, and luckily, mine was ok outta the box. The Only nitpick I have is that its soft a 2.8 towards its min. focus distance. But again its rather miniscule. Heres some recent pics, I hope you like.







--

http://www.Ominous.smugmug.com
'Dead Man Walking'

View my samples here: http://rkligman.smugmug.com/gallery/1797106
--
Rick Insane Diego...

If you are planning alot of low light with this zoom and not adding any primes then it may be a good choice. If not and macro (or a decent close focus capability) is a priortity then I'd suggest you look at the Sigma 17-70.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

The Sigma 17-70mm is a very sharp lens and a good choice over the 18-70mm kit lens. That said, I'd take the constant speed of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 over the extra 20mm of reach. Sigma is also releasing a version of the 18-50mm f/2.8 w/ macro cababilities.

This lens makes an excellant walk-around lens. Very sharp from edge to edge, light, decent build.
jk

Mine almost glued to body since the first day.

Sharp and contrasty, even at 17/2.8, and wide open performance is better than tamron 2875. Bought another copy for a friend and also focused quite well, so for a limited sample tamron seems to do its homework. Didn't miss much of the 'regular' 50-70 range and personally prefer the fast 2.8 over that range even for walkaround.

I brag so much about this lens and compared it against nikon's 1755 ... and now I'm saving to get the 1755. =) But for 1/3rd price you get a lot for your money.

Stephen Hopkins said:

The Sigma 17-70mm is a very sharp lens and a good choice over the
18-70mm kit lens. That said, I'd take the constant speed of the
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 over the extra 20mm of
reach. Sigma is also releasing a version of the 18-50mm f/2.8 w/
macro cababilities.

Click to expand...

If it can do 1:2 with the same sharpness then I'll definitely need to sell my 17-70!
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

FWIW, I just bought one thru buydig.com and took it on a trip to Bar Harbor. Great lens and one I'm happy to have, since it's lighter and very nearly as sharp as my Nikkor 17-55 F2.8 even wide open. The difference is really hard to see and would never affect the saleability of a photo.

That said, the Nikkor is considerably more rugged, better sealed against rain and generally well worth the 3X cost, if one has that money---but you still need a backup for any impt lens and this one is a fine way to get started shooting very high quality images!

We did mostly landscape photos this past weekend and all photos were eminently usable if I did my part, but the lens was actually purchased to be a lighter version of the 17-55 during long days of event or political coverage and it will do just fine, leaving the Nikkor in my "architectural shooting" bag with the 12-24s and PC lenses. Anyway, one backs up the other and many money shots come from somewhere in this range.

I'd give it a complet thumbs-up and send it in for calibration if you get a funky copy.

--
Bill