Xti+Tamron 17-50 vs. D80 kit ? (plus 55-200 tele lens)

I want to buy a $1000 DLSR kit. There are two options currently in my mind.

1. Canon Xti body + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 + 55-200 IS. (Amazon price: 550+430+280=$1260)

2. D80 with 18-55 kit lens + 55-200 VR. (Abes of Maine price: $930 total)

Actually there was a third option: Canon Xsi kit + 55-200 IS, which has similar price tag as option 1. But I generally don't opt for it because 1) it is harder to get xsi at this time 2) I'm worrying about the focus problem of Xsi which is frequently mentioned in the forum.

I'm going to make a cross country trip in June for two weeks so I believe I will use the wide end more frequently than the tele end.

With limited budget, one option has better lens and the other option has better body (and also lower price). Since people always say lens is more important than body, I sometimes lean to option 1. However, $330 in price difference makes sense so I'm really in the dilemma.

Bodies are easier to compare, and what I really want to know is how does Tamron 17-55 compare with Nikkor 18-55 kit lens, or even with Canon 18-55 IS kit lens in my case? I mean, when you are comparing the lens you should keep in mind that they will be combined with different bodies.

Put my dilemma in another way, is the $330 difference worth it?

I'm going to also post this in the Nikon forum. I'm new to this forum and I hope it is not considered offensive.

Thanks!

BTW, is there anybody interested in joining my cross country trip? I'm moving from Virginia to San Jose, CA by driving, and I'm looking for trip buddies.

Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Nikon 18-55/3.5-5.6 are DIFFERENT lenses. Let me explain. 18-55 is a good walk around lens. It is reasonable sharp. Probably, it may be even slightly sharper than 17-50. Nothing else ... The main point of 17-50 is its constant 2.8 aperture. This lens lets you play with the DOF which is much narrower on 50/2.8 than on 50/5.6. If you like portraits with blurred background (as almost all people do) than take Tamron.

BTW, if you go for D80 I would strongly suggest you to take 18-70/3.5-4.5 (not 18-135!) instead of 18-55. 18-70 is slightly more expensive, but it is better. In my opinion 18-70 is the best budget (

elimli said:

Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Nikon 18-55/3.5-5.6 are DIFFERENT lenses. Let me
explain. 18-55 is a good walk around lens. It is reasonable sharp.
Probably, it may be even slightly sharper than 17-50. Nothing else
... The main point of 17-50 is its constant 2.8 aperture. This lens
lets you play with the DOF which is much narrower on 50/2.8 than on
50/5.6. If you like portraits with blurred background (as almost all
people do) than take Tamron.

BTW, if you go for D80 I would strongly suggest you to take
18-70/3.5-4.5 (not 18-135!) instead of 18-55. 18-70 is slightly more
expensive, but it is better. In my opinion 18-70 is the best budget
(

Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion elimli. I do appreciate constant 2.8 aperture, not only for portraits, but also for various other situations where I want to emphasis the subject. But the problem is, in my case, if I opt for constant f/2.8, I will spend $300 more and I will not have large and bright view finder and good ergonomics, among other more or less good features found on D80. So after balancing lens/body/price, which one is better?

About Nikon 18-70, will it be more cost effective than kit lens? I doubt it.

soarocy said:

So after balancing
lens/body/price, which one is better?

Click to expand...

OK. This is a religious question and I prefer to be politically correct. Both cams have got their pros and cons. D80 - better ergonomics, viewfinder, also, I guess, it should be more reliable. People claim that D80's AF is more accurate. But 400D is more compact and its ISO 1600 looks cleaner.

soarocy said:

About Nikon 18-70, will it be more cost effective than kit lens? I doubt it.

Click to expand...

This should be your decision ... Personally I don't have any doubts ...

elimli said:

OK. This is a religious question and I prefer to be politically
correct.

Click to expand...

LOL... I think you are right. However, every input helps me make my belief, so I appreciate you and others' comments very much. Thanks!

Both cameras are good. Just buy one - you cannot be disappointed.

Forget about all that technical specs (iso, fps, etc), just try to handle both cameras in your hands and choose the best one.

Where exactly did you read that 18-55 is sharper than 17-50?
--
Tal C

Thats a tough one, I think much is going to depend on you. I would however agree with the lens is the biggy over the body, i've found that out myself. I own the XTi so can only speak for that camera, love it! The Xsi is nice also, and you mentioned that as an option also, but like mentioned there have been some problems with it that has been noted all over the board. Sure, you can keep switching out till you get a good one, but shouldn't one for the price of that box get one the first time around is my way of thinking. Pics are nice from what i've seen of it though, although much has been edited as they are with many in here.

The lens, never owned a tamaron. I prefer Canon lenses myself, but would consider a Tamaron or Sigma if the price was way out on a canon lens that I wanted, from what I seen first hand at the camera shop many are comparable to a canon, but cost a bit less.

Is it possible to go too the camera shop and give all your options a run personally, that may help you decide on what your happy with.

I didn't read. I tried d40x with both lenses and found that several pictures from 18-55 were slightly sharper, of course the focal distance and aperture were the same. But read my message again. I don't claim that 18-55 is generally sharper that 17-50. I'm just trying to say that in some rare situations 18-55 may be even sharper, but sharpens is not everything ...

BTW, my experience showed that 18-70 is sharper than Tamron on 50/5.6

elimli said:

I don't claim that 18-55 is generally sharper that 17-50. I'm just
trying to say that in some rare situations 18-55 may be even sharper,
but sharpens is not everything ...

Click to expand...

cool. How about their respective color and distortion? If the IQ are comparative at the same setting, then I would prefer D80 kit, because although large aperture is an advantage, for most scenery pix that I will take, it is not that important. Thanks.

The Nikon - is it the ordinary 18-55mm kit lens or their newer imagestabilised (VR) one? If it is the latter, this may be preferable over the more expensive EOS400D kit.

The fast Tamron zooom is be better for people pictures, an IS lens is better for churches, museums, still subjects...

Most important is to check the cameras in hnad before you buy to see how you cope with the much smaller viewfinder of the Xti/EOS400D.

--
Chris

Christoph Stephan said:

The Nikon - is it the ordinary 18-55mm kit lens or their newer
imagestabilised (VR) one? If it is the latter, this may be preferable
over the more expensive EOS400D kit.

Most important is to check the cameras in hnad before you buy to see
how you cope with the much smaller viewfinder of the Xti/EOS400D.

Click to expand...

It is the non-VR ordinary kit lens. I have checked my friend's Xti, the handling is not that great and its viewfinder can't even beat Nikon's D40, but I'm OK with that. Haven't tried D80 though.

I suggest that you look at some reviews and that's it. there are enough comparisons on the internet, and if elimli's right, I will be taking my hat off, which I highly doubt.

Reviews.

--
Tal C

(prices are from reputable vendors in US, including shipping)

Nikon D80 body only: $720
Nikon 50mm prime (your low light lens): $105
Nikon 18-55 VR: $170

Nikon 70-300VR (I would def get this over the much cheaper 55-200 you mentioned - that's an ok lens, but not nearly as good as the 70-300, even though the 70-300 costs more (but worth it imo): $480
Total: $1475

That's more than your budget, but you could probably get away with just the first two lenses for a while and save up for the zoom - getting everything but the zoom will put you right at $995 - imo, a great kit to start. Nikon advantage also is that you can buy a great, CHEAP flash that bounces, for around $100. On the Canon side, to get a flash that bounces, you have to pony up more than double that.

Canon:

Xsi with 18-55ISkit lens: about $800
55-250IS lens: $300
50mm 1.8: $90
Total: $1190

This is what I have and I am pretty happy...but I NEVER use my 17-55. Either the 50mm is on the body, or the 55-250. I love them both...the 17-55 is just...meh...to me.

I think it's a toss up personally. If I had it to do over, I might try the Nikon option, not sure.

One thing to consider: is high iso shooting a priority for you? If so, I would lean towards the Canon (or wait to see what replaces the D80 since I assume they will make some advances in the noise reduction dept.)

Also, Xsi vs Xti...pony up and get the obviously better body - sometimes model updates are merely incremental, but this was a pretty big one, with a ton of new features and engine updates.

Good luck, I think both are great. I was concerned about VF quality on Xsi vs. D80 myself, but I have no complaints after using the Xsi for about a month. Very happy with VF (though the D80's IS better)

Bruce Edwards said:

Nikon D80 body only: $720
Nikon 50mm prime (your low light lens): $105
Nikon 18-55 VR: $170
Nikon 70-300VR (I would def get this over the much cheaper 55-200 you
mentioned - that's an ok lens, but not nearly as good as the 70-300,
even though the 70-300 costs more (but worth it imo): $480
Total: $1475

That's more than your budget, but you could probably get away with
just the first two lenses for a while and save up for the zoom -
getting everything but the zoom will put you right at $995 - imo, a
great kit to start. Nikon advantage also is that you can buy a
great, CHEAP flash that bounces, for around $100. On the Canon side,
to get a flash that bounces, you have to pony up more than double
that.

Click to expand...

With the cheap flash and the 18-55mmVR he may not need that 50 mm f1.8. I would rather get the tele quicker. For me, 50mm is an awkward focal length on a 1.6 crop DSLR - always a tad too long. If he does many portraits, then the fast 50 mm may be a advantage. However I tried the 50mm f 1.8 from Canon on a friend and the shallow depth of field at f1.8 really was a problem - ears were razorsharp but his nose was unsharp. For my style of shooting, I would prioritise the tele any time. As I like Macros, I would not want to miss my Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro, though.

Bruce Edwards said:

Also, Xsi vs Xti...pony up and get the obviously better body -
sometimes model updates are merely incremental, but this was a pretty
big one, with a ton of new features and engine updates.

Click to expand...

The Xsi has a better viewfinder as well.

--
Chris

thanks for all the replies. Bruce mentioned he would prefer Nikkor 70-300 VR rather than 55-200 VR, which makes me wonder how Canon's 55-200 IS compares with Nikkor 55-200 VR. I notice Canon's is a bit more expensive ($280 vs. $210 on Amazon). Will C's 55-200 IS be better than N's 55-200 VR?

You mean the 55-250IS? Be careful if you are buying, there are two (at least) models here from Canon. The older non IS 55-200 (which I hear is pretty crummy) and the brand new 55-250 IS (not the difference on the tele end)

FWIW, both the Nikon and its Canon counterpart score exactly the same on photozone, but I sure am glad to have that extra 50mm of reach - it does make a difference (actually, I would like a 55-300!).

Bruce Edwards said:

(prices are from reputable vendors in US, including shipping)
Canon:

Xsi with 18-55ISkit lens: about $800
55-250IS lens: $300
50mm 1.8: $90
Total: $1190

Click to expand...

Where'd you find the XSI with kit lens for only 800? Lowest I've found was around $840-850.

Anyways, my experience with the Canon 55-250mm IS lens has been quite good. Has a comparatively more effective IS system than the 18-55 kit, and has good background blur when you use it at a higher focal length. However, my copy has a little bit of a CA issue when used wide open, and it has pretty considerable vignetting as well. Pretty sharp lens though, I mostly use it for its long end telephoto, not really at some of the lower focal lengths, but I really like how compact and light the lens is compared to other telephotos.

I personally went with the Canon body because I prefer their noise performance, and handling wasn't much of a priority for me.

I also have the 50mm f/1.8, but I almost never use it. In practice, IS makes more useful to me than large apetures.