Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 17-55 2.8 or Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC

Go to last post
L

legui

Leading Member
Messages
730
Reaction score
0
Location
Buenos Aires, AR
Hello,

First of all thank you for reading.

I have to choose between these two lenses. I know that maybe de Nikon is the best option, but also, it cost almost the double. What are your suggestion? Does the Tamron with VC and better price a good choice? I heard about some focus problems with the Tamron, is it for all the versions?
The Nikon is biggest and heavier, but maybe better...
What is your recommendation?
Thanks in advance!

--
Pablo Legarreta
http://www.fotolegarreta.com.ar
 
depends how fussy you are.

The nikon is a nikon, and chances are nothing will annoy you about it. Its solid build and professional feel (no slop) make it a worthwile choice. I have one and the images are indistinguishable from the primes in that range (20,35,50). Thats what you get for double the money

I had a tamron once and the small annoyances were enough to make me get rid of it.

My 17-55 has dropped $100 in value since i bought i 4years ago, i reckon you couldnt give away the tamron.

But then again.......im very fussy.
 
If you want to buy the Tamron 17-50mm VC, make sure you get a good copy, e.g. correct exposure, good sharpness, snap on focusing. I guess then it will be better than the Nikon 17-55mm.
legui said:
Hello,

First of all thank you for reading.

I have to choose between these two lenses. I know that maybe de Nikon is the best option, but also, it cost almost the double. What are your suggestion? Does the Tamron with VC and better price a good choice? I heard about some focus problems with the Tamron, is it for all the versions?
The Nikon is biggest and heavier, but maybe better...
What is your recommendation?
Thanks in advance!

--
Pablo Legarreta
http://www.fotolegarreta.com.ar
Click to expand...
 
or you could just buy the Nikon and KNOW you are getting a good one...
so how would this be better than the Nikon?
 
That it is a nikon is no guarantee that you get a good copy. Many here have stated that they have tried a handful of 17-55s before they got a good one. That goes for the 18-200 as well, and the fact that many are very satisfied with the performance of the 18-70 and that many are very dissapointed with it tells the same story.

I haven't tried the Tamron 17-50 VC myself, but the non VC version is sharper at the edges making it better for landscapes at least.

The main drawback for the Tamron is the autofocus motor, but then, the VC version is said to be better in that compartment than the non VC version.
Oh... An the Tamron has VC, which the Nikon has not.

(I might add that I have the Nikon and am very happy with it, but I would never have gotten it if I hadn't got the VERY good the I got on it. It's simply not close to as good as the price states as long as you only speak of IQ)
NDT001 said:
or you could just buy the Nikon and KNOW you are getting a good one...
so how would this be better than the Nikon?
Click to expand...
 
dumbo said:
That it is a nikon is no guarantee that you get a good copy. Many here have stated that they have tried a handful of 17-55s before they got a good one. That goes for the 18-200 as well, and the fact that many are very satisfied with the performance of the 18-70 and that many are very dissapointed with it tells the same story.
Click to expand...
I agree. Had twice a bad 18-200 AF-S... One of them produced totally blurred right side of the image.

Furthermore: If you have a D300 or D300s body which gives you the opportunity of AF fine tuning, just go for the tamron, it's a great lens and the VC comes in very handsome and works great. I tried the 17-55VC on my S5pro, very sharp in MF, but with AF it was backfocusing, and while S5pro does not have AF fine tuning, I send it back.
--
Kindest regards,
Stany
http://www.fotografie.fr/
http://www.fotografie.fr/fotoforum/index.php

I prefer one really good picture in a day over 10 bad ones in a second...
 
I've shot extensively w the tamron 17-50 (w built-in-motor). The lens is very very sharp wide, however has a hint of vignetting @2.8. For the price no lens on the market (third party lenses) touches this lens for sharpness, contrast, and color. The bokeh is also very smooth. It helped me breath new life into my old D50 and D300 bodies (previously used Canons) when all I had was the 18-200 VR lens (not to mention it also rendered a slightly brighter image). Edge sharpness is also excellent...coupled w the d300 body (using NX 2 as RAW converter) removes almost all hint of CA).

Make sure u get the older version of the lens (screw-driven) because the new VC and b-i-m versions are way to slow to aquire focus in low light (the screw driven version just zips in focus quickly). Also the tamron will weigh much much less vs the Nikkor w hood on.
 
.. The Nikkor 17-55 2.8 has been my walk around lens for some time.
..Used both on D50 and D300.. Gave my Tamron away to friend...;-0.
.
--
Jon in Thailand

http://www.flickr.com/photos/af2899/
.
 
I purchased the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 vc 2 weeks ago after taking hundreds of pics with it and the Nikon 17-55. I really wanted the Nikon but could not justify it because the Tamron consistantly looked better. I was really surprised at the build quality of the Tamron too. Very nice lens. I dont think you would be dissapointed with it.
 
Thank you all for the answers.

Now I am pretty confused, yesterday I decided to go for the Nikon lens because I was afraid of the many bad copies (focus problems) of the Tamron lens. But now I am reading that the Tamron wasnt so bad. I dont want to spend too much money on the Nikon lens if there is a similar lens with almost the same perfomance and cost so much less.

I have a D300 and a D90, If i get a Tamron copy with backfocussing problems, can I solve that with the AF Fine tune?
--
Pablo Legarreta
http://www.fotolegarreta.com.ar
 
I would take the Tamron without a doubt.

I tried out my coworkers 17-55 Nikon for a theater shoot, and really didnt like the way the zoom ring was located so close to the camera house.

I dont think you get twice the quality with the Nikon.... and you get VR...er VC! with the Tamron
 
I don't know about the D90, but with the D300, you can solve that with fine tuning the focus. Although, it's so much easier to buy at your local camera store and try out the lens you intend to purchase and leave knowing that you have a "good copy."

There are threads stating how you can do this test with a printable PDF.

Saying that, I bought the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC when it came out for Nikon a few months ago. It has been a fantastic lens, and I'm very pleased. No issues with mine, and I ordered it from eBay with Bing Cashback from a reputable dealer. I like to roll the dice and take chances I guess. Again, it's a great lens.

My flickr stream has a lot of photos from this lens - check the tags on the right. Here are some that you might like to see:

San Francisco panorama stitched in Photoshop:



2.8 in Japan:



HDR sunrise in Japan with Tokyo Tower:



Sensoji Temple Lanterns in Asakusa, Japan:



Another 2.8 in Japan of Potato Taiyaki (pancake-like food):



Good luck with your decision.

Regards,

Scott
http://flickr.com/photos/barl0w
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top