Reading mode: Light Dark

If you could have one affordable lens....

Go to last post
A

AaronJAnderson

Member
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Location
Louisville, US
Been a happy D60 user for about 2 years. I had the 18-55mm kit lens along with the 55-200vr and wasn't ever really pleased with the picture quality.

I bought the 35mm 1.8f and it was like a brand new camera. Picture quality immediately became much much better... colors were more clear, much more sharp, just a much better lens. So good that I've abandoned my 2 zooms and they haven't been attached to my camera in over a year.

I'm planning on buying the D90 replacement, D7000, when it comes out. Been waiting very patiently.

I need a decent zoom lens... My 35mm prime spoiled me. I missing having 18mm for wide shots. I need something sharp and useful. I don't really care for superzooms. I rented the 1st gen 18-200 and it was "ok" - I don't do a lot of shooting over 85mm.

The specs and size of the Tokina 16-50 f/28 look great, but the reviews are so-so and say the CA is very very bad.

So what would you guys do? Need to keep it under 1,000 bucks.
 
AaronJAnderson said:
So what would you guys do? Need to keep it under 1,000 bucks.
Click to expand...
It's really a no-brainer given your budget of $1,000. It sells new for about $1,400 and can be found in mint condition on eBay for under $1,000.

Check it out here and read the reviews:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html

It translates into an effective focal range of 25.5-82.5mm, which is plenty wide for landscape, tight quarters, group portraits and also great for portraits and full-length body shots on the long end.

Best wishes!
--

'He who works with his hands is a laborer. He who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman. He who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist.'
--Francis of Assisi--
 
As sharp and distortion free as the 17-55 f2.8. What it lacks in comparison is not as well sealed, not as fast (aperture). What you get is wider, longer and 3-4 stops of stabilization. For low light neither will match your 35mm f1.8g. And since you already have a fast prime, I think the 16-85vr makes more sense.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
 
The 17-55 is very clear and sharp and the good news is it's that way right from F2.8 and I'd say the honey zone for mine is F5.6 and it's very good else where. So you have a useful lens in all that lower F number range which is not the case with all 2.8 lenses. You get that with very good contrast holding ability and pro build.

It's a very impressive lens but large and heavy, given it's range.

I'm not a fan of lenses with a minimum aperture of 4.5 or especially 5.6 on one end and marginal 3.5 on the other, though I own a couple. Mostly I use them in scenic photography where you need to stop down to F8 or F11. For me that makes them less versatile. If you photograph people , family events, family members, semipro events even, then you appreciate being able to open up more. If you buy a lens that can't do that, well you just can't do it then can you ( open up to the wide apertures I mean, not the events, you can shoot the events but the results will be like most point and shoot coverage in terms of DOF) !

Check out their return policy, maybe give one of those 17-55s a try. I don't think you will be disappointed.

David
AaronJAnderson said:
Looks like Adorama sells them on eBay for 999 as manu refurbs...

I'll look into it!
Click to expand...
 
I'd prefer the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8: cheaper, smaller, and the same IQ.

--
A Nikon camera and more lenses than I need, but less than I'd like ...
 
SMV78 said:
I'd prefer the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8: cheaper, smaller, and the same IQ.
Click to expand...
I have both the Tamron and the 17-55 Nikon. There is nothing to chose between them on sharpness but there is more to IQ than that and definitely more to a lens. The Tamron has less contrast, far more vignetting, flare (with a hood that does little to help) and CA. It's AF performance and lack of full time override is night and day and means it's not really a like for like comparison. Add to that extending when zooming, inferior build quality and lack of weather sealing and the 17-55 is well worth the extra if you can handle the weight.

I don't have the VC version which obviously suffers the inherent image problems introduced by the VC on a wide 2.8 lens.
 
David Grabowski said:
If you photograph people , family events, family members, semipro events even, then you appreciate being able to open up more. If you buy a lens that can't do that, well you just can't do it then can you ( open up to the wide apertures I mean, not the events, you can shoot the events but the results will be like most point and shoot coverage in terms of DOF) !
Click to expand...
I do shoot these kind of events... it's essentially where I live. That's why the 35mm prime has been so incredibly efficient for me to use. I think I'm going to have to rent both of these lenses to see what I want. I think I'll be using the zoom more "around town" and on trips and things... mostly in daylight but I do like having some DOF.
 
Sounds like you'd be happier with the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. There is much more to a lens than sharpness (mine is very sharp at f/2.8). Use one and you'll know what I mean. It produces beautiful images. My slower zooms (which I sold) were no match.

Good luck,
Richard
--
Equipment: 1 camera, 1 lens, 38 years
http://www.pbase.com/rgthompson



 
Early reports and reviews of the new Sigma 17-50 OS suggest it is a contender both in terms of IQ and AF speed/accuracy. And your budget should cover a new copy rather than taking a gamble with used (not sure of US price but here in the UK they're around £600).
 
Fave Photog said:
AaronJAnderson said:
So what would you guys do? Need to keep it under 1,000 bucks.
Click to expand...
It's really a no-brainer given your budget of $1,000. It sells new for about $1,400 and can be found in mint condition on eBay for under $1,000.

Check it out here and read the reviews:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html

It translates into an effective focal range of 25.5-82.5mm, which is plenty wide for landscape, tight quarters, group portraits and also great for portraits and full-length body shots on the long end.
Click to expand...
Well, its more like a 27-82.5mm lens, I thnk I saw that on bythom. Here's the link: http://www.bythom.com/1755lens.htm

It always narrow down to the 16-85 VR and 17-55. Choose your poison ;)
Fave Photog said:
Best wishes!
--

'He who works with his hands is a laborer. He who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman. He who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist.'
--Francis of Assisi--
Click to expand...
--
Cheers, Reza
 
Vince P said:
SMV78 wrote:

I don't have the VC version which obviously suffers the inherent image problems introduced by the VC on a wide 2.8 lens.
Click to expand...
Actually, the VC version or the original version of this lens are the two to consider and avoid the motor drive version that lies between. I have the VC version and used to shoot the old screw drive original version and while I agree that the Nikon is a tad better, the VC version is faster focusing than all of its predecessors and has better image quality. There is no image degradation with the newer lens and it is better color wise and contrast wise than its predecessors.

As to the overall quality of the image; sharpness, contrast and color quality are quite good. Again, the nikon is a tad better, though most wouldn't notice it without side-by-side close examination. Nikon is also sealed, but the build quality on the Tamron is better than many folks think. I do or have owned, Nikon, Tokina, Tamron and Sigma lenses and the Tamrons have held up as well as the others over the years.

At about 40% of the price of the Nikon, the Tamron is a good deal. If you need the environment sealing and the assurance of the Nikon name, than the Nikon is the way to go. Bottom line, you can't go wrong in the 17-50/55 category. My guess is that the Sigma version might be pretty good as well; however, Sigma does tend to be a tad warmer than the others.

Good luck,
--
Roger M
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogerrog/ or
http://[email protected]
 
Your findings don't match the reviews I've read. They all show worse performance compared to the non-VC version.
rmcovering said:
Vince P said:
SMV78 wrote:

I don't have the VC version which obviously suffers the inherent image problems introduced by the VC on a wide 2.8 lens.
Click to expand...
Actually, the VC version or the original version of this lens are the two to consider and avoid the motor drive version that lies between. I have the VC version and used to shoot the old screw drive original version and while I agree that the Nikon is a tad better, the VC version is faster focusing than all of its predecessors and has better image quality. There is no image degradation with the newer lens and it is better color wise and contrast wise than its predecessors.

As to the overall quality of the image; sharpness, contrast and color quality are quite good. Again, the nikon is a tad better, though most wouldn't notice it without side-by-side close examination. Nikon is also sealed, but the build quality on the Tamron is better than many folks think. I do or have owned, Nikon, Tokina, Tamron and Sigma lenses and the Tamrons have held up as well as the others over the years.

At about 40% of the price of the Nikon, the Tamron is a good deal. If you need the environment sealing and the assurance of the Nikon name, than the Nikon is the way to go. Bottom line, you can't go wrong in the 17-50/55 category. My guess is that the Sigma version might be pretty good as well; however, Sigma does tend to be a tad warmer than the others.

Good luck,
--
Roger M
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogerrog/ or
http://[email protected]
Click to expand...
 
AaronJAnderson said:
I bought the 35mm 1.8f and it was like a brand new camera. Picture quality immediately became much much better... colors were more clear, much more sharp, just a much better lens. So good that I've abandoned my 2 zooms and they haven't been attached to my camera in over a year.
Click to expand...
Primes can ruin your taste for zooms. Why not add the Tamron 90/2.8, and have a dynamite 2 lens kit? The latest version has a built in focusing motor.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
Appassionato dilettante
Galleries at fdrphoto.smugmug.com
 
Jon Rty said:
Your findings don't match the reviews I've read. They all show worse performance compared to the non-VC version.
Click to expand...
We must be reading different reviews; most of which i have read say that the new lens is faster focusing and that the IQ is about the same. Remenber that there are at least three distinct generations of this lens. The original version that uses an AF type of focus that depends on the motor in the camera body. This is the lens that most folks call the best of Tamron's efforts. The second is designated by IF and is a real focusing dog. It is OK optically, but focuses very, very slow! The last Generation is VC IF and has decent focus capability - I never said it was as fast s AF-S - but it is very reasonable. As to IQ, the last in my opinion has better IQ than the other two with one exception, from 17-19mm there is a very noticeable distortion compared to the earlier models. But when it comes to sharpness, color and contrast, the VC version is the best of the bunch. This is based on owning the first version and now the third version. While, I never owned the second version with the IF and no VC, I did test it out long enough to get mad at it and refuse to buy it.

All that said, the VC version of this lens is still a fantastic deal for the money. Of course the Nikon is a better lens. The question is really this: is the extra $600 plus worth the extra Nikon edge. For some it is, for others, they just don't shoot that focal length that much. For the second group the Tamron and probably the Sigma are better choices.

Do I claim that the Tamron 17-50 is perfect, no... is it good enough for me... very much so as it sits at a range that I don't use as much as others. That, to me is the big decision.

--
Roger M
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogerrog/ or
http://[email protected]
 
Well, all versions with internal motors use very similar motors, and the documented AF-performance is also similar. As for optical performance, the VC version fares worse in tests.

Non-VC in Canon mount: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review?start=1

Non-VC in Nikon mount: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-test-report--review?start=1

VC in Canon mount: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon?start=1
rmcovering said:
Jon Rty said:
Your findings don't match the reviews I've read. They all show worse performance compared to the non-VC version.
Click to expand...
We must be reading different reviews; most of which i have read say that the new lens is faster focusing and that the IQ is about the same. Remenber that there are at least three distinct generations of this lens. The original version that uses an AF type of focus that depends on the motor in the camera body. This is the lens that most folks call the best of Tamron's efforts. The second is designated by IF and is a real focusing dog. It is OK optically, but focuses very, very slow! The last Generation is VC IF and has decent focus capability - I never said it was as fast s AF-S - but it is very reasonable. As to IQ, the last in my opinion has better IQ than the other two with one exception, from 17-19mm there is a very noticeable distortion compared to the earlier models. But when it comes to sharpness, color and contrast, the VC version is the best of the bunch. This is based on owning the first version and now the third version. While, I never owned the second version with the IF and no VC, I did test it out long enough to get mad at it and refuse to buy it.

All that said, the VC version of this lens is still a fantastic deal for the money. Of course the Nikon is a better lens. The question is really this: is the extra $600 plus worth the extra Nikon edge. For some it is, for others, they just don't shoot that focal length that much. For the second group the Tamron and probably the Sigma are better choices.

Do I claim that the Tamron 17-50 is perfect, no... is it good enough for me... very much so as it sits at a range that I don't use as much as others. That, to me is the big decision.

--
Roger M
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogerrog/ or
http://[email protected]
Click to expand...
 
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