17-55mm.... Nikon or Tamron... HELP!!!

04/12/2009 12:00:55 AM · #1

ok... starting to think more seriously about a real professional wide zoom lens...

I like the 18-55mm kit lens, but i am not very pleased with the results I get of family group shots... I'm used to shooting with primes, so I NEED maximum sharpness...

it's down to the Tamron 17-50mm or the Nikon 17-55mm... I don't care how professional, or well built is it... All I care about it end result picture quality...

Which is better? Are they that much better than the 18-55 kit lens?... I mean, are they really THAT MUCH BETTER???

any help would be appreciated... =)

thanks

.

Dirt_Diver

Nikon D3s

04/12/2009 12:07:43 AM · #2

I too would like to know this... The price difference is strangely odd isn't it?

04/12/2009 12:11:53 AM · #3

yea... approx $1500 for nikon and approx 600 for tamron (in cdn dollars eh? hahaha... not sure about USA, but % diff is same)

Message edited by author 2009-04-12 00:12:09.

04/12/2009 12:33:33 AM · #4

I have heard that they are quite close, but I want some more DPC'ers opinions =)

Message edited by author 2009-04-12 00:33:49.

04/12/2009 01:06:43 AM · #5

here's one site... see... it seems that the 18-55 is close to as good as both??? i dunno...

Tamron 17-50mm

nikon 18-55mm

nikon 17-55mm

although... it would be nice to have f/2.8 at 55mm...

Message edited by author 2009-04-12 01:07:16.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

04/12/2009 02:58:43 AM · #6

Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:

here's one site... see... it seems that the 18-55 is close to as good as both??? i dunno...

Tamron 17-50mm

nikon 18-55mm

nikon 17-55mm

although... it would be nice to have f/2.8 at 55mm...

In general, I have found Photozone's reviews pretty accurate. If you want a second opinion, I feel slrgear are reliable too.. more so because they track user ratings and not just expert ratings.

Message edited by author 2009-04-12 02:59:01.

cdrice

Nikon D7000

04/12/2009 03:13:54 AM · #7

I researched that purchase myself last year (April of 2008, I see from my email archive), and I went with the Nikon 17-55. I needed something I could open as wide as possible, so the 18-55/3.5-5.6 wasn't even a consideration. I was mainly sweating the 17-55/2.8 DX vs. the 17-35/2.8 full-frame (and briefly considered the Tamron 17-50/2.8).

All the reviews and comparisons I found indicated the 17-55 was consistently and noticeably the sharpest wide open, which sealed the deal for me (my main use is concert and theatre, and I shoot wide open most of the time).

I think what you decide on, obviously, depends on what you need. If you need maximum sharpness wide open, I think the clear consensus is the Nikon 17-55/2.8. If you're requirements are completely different, then you might save some money on one of the other lenses...

I picked up my 17-55/2.8 at Adorama for $1,200 last April. A quick check around confirms that's still pretty-much the best deal (that I can find quickly at least). Been worth every penny to me.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/12/2009 09:50:46 AM · #8

Originally posted by Prash:

In general, I have found Photozone's reviews pretty accurate. If you want a second opinion, I feel slrgear are reliable too.. more so because they track user ratings and not just expert ratings.

Thanks, I checked out that site, and they seem pretty good...

From my research (i'd love some re-confirmation on this...) is seems that both the nikon and tamron 17-5x lenses BLOW the nikon 18-55 lit lens away...

it jsut seems that the nikon one is a tad better...

speaking in Canadian dollars, I can get the Tamron 17-50mm lens for $550 taxes in NEW, and the Nikon one is $1600 taxes in NEW...

The Tamron is 1/3 of the price... so I think I'm going to go for the tamron... only because i hear that even the tamron blows teh kit lens into the dust...

Honestly, I'm afraid to bring my 18-200 VR lens with my sometimes in fear of breaking it... i'd be WAY too afraid of breaking a $1600 lens....

any more suggestions?

Does anyone have that lens and have an opinion? thanks

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

04/12/2009 10:26:39 AM · #9

I wish I could help with that specific lens, but I can only offer this comparison.

I went from a 28-300 Tamron to a 18-200 VR Nikon and to me the difference was night and day.

To me the double price was well worth it in image and product quality.

I will probably never buy anything but Nikon lenses.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/12/2009 10:35:59 AM · #10

I totally agree, BUT that's why many people are confused, beacuse many reviews state that this Tamron in particualy is Strangely alsmost identical to the Nikon lens... I think Tamron just fluked out and got lucky with this particular lens... that's why I am really stinking hard about it...

many other people have hit the same problem I am having... my instinct is to say that Tamron sucks, but all the reviews state that it's a REALLY good lens!

hmm...

...

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

04/12/2009 10:57:00 AM · #11

Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:

my instinct is to say that Tamron sucks, but all the reviews state that it's a REALLY good lens!

Don't get me wrong....I didn't think that the Tamron sucked, just to me, the Nikon was worth the extra money.

04/12/2009 10:59:16 AM · #12

no no no, I totally agree, in 99% of the cases, Nikon is well worth the extra money because Nikon is usually WAY better than the tamron...

in those cases, the tamron does suck...

in this case, Nikon doesn't seem to be worth the extra money because the Tamron seems to be just as good as the nikon ...

.

04/12/2009 04:05:22 PM · #13

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

True that! I am another one of the brand-fanatics-in-the-make around here. Once you try the branded stuff, you dont go back. Of course until I couldnt afford the branded versions, there are some decent 3rd party choices. But I have leart that it is better to save for good stuff than accumulate below par quality glass in impatience.

04/12/2009 04:12:45 PM · #14

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:
my instinct is to say that Tamron sucks, but all the reviews state that it's a REALLY good lens!

Don't get me wrong....I didn't think that the Tamron sucked, just to me, the Nikon was worth the extra money.

Just to add: the third party lenses often match most of the many desired brand-like qualities, but rarely do they match all. Namely, if a 3rd party lens is fast and cheap, it would be slow to AF.. or will be noisy.. or not as nicely built. It depends on what you can compromise on for your needs. For my needs, e.g., I like to shoots birds (with a camera;-). And a 3rd party lens, though faster (f/2.8) and for the same price as a slower branded one, wont be of any use if it fails to AF quickly half the time and the moment is gone.

Heres a funny quote I read at a contractor's office recently:

If you want CHEAP and FAST service, it wont be GOOD.
If you want GOOD and FAST service, it wont be CHEAP.
If you want CHEAP and GOOD service, it doesnt exist in our world.

:-)

Message edited by author 2009-04-12 16:14:13.

04/12/2009 05:48:02 PM · #15

hahaha

Prash, how do you like the 16-85mm VR? what is it's widest apperture at the 50mm setting???

I would buy that sucker in a second if it was faster...

I'm planning on getting into weddings, so I need the 2.8 for dimly lit halls...

I'm going to try and get a good deal in the tamron, but in the meantime i'd Love it if someone with one could give me some input...

I'm going to try and go to Henry's Camera (store) and take some test shots with ALL three (nikon/tamron/nikon kit) and then take them home, blow them to 100% and compare...

.

04/12/2009 08:01:18 PM · #16

Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:

Eric, I love the 16-85. It is much better in sharpness compared to the kit lens..esp. at the wide angles. It also has considerably less distortions as compared to the 18-105mm VR kit glass. The only downside, as you caught, is that it isnt too fast. It is f/5.0 sooner than you would expect on the focal range.

Then again, I am not a pro.. I just use it for daylit scenes.. mostly for leisure. So I like it a lot. I dont think it would be that great in dimly lit halls... because the VR will only help with camera shake.. not subject movements.

Message edited by author 2009-04-12 20:02:09.

jettyimages

Nikon D700

04/12/2009 08:22:12 PM · #17

I have the 18-55 that came as a kit lens, and the 17-55. The 18-55 is not a bad lens for a kit, but you really really really won't know yourself with the 17-55. There is absolutely no comparison, it is a lovely lens, much larger and heavier than the 18-55, and feels great in the hand. The 18-55 gives you pretty good pictures, but as far as true creativity goes, its hard to make it do much, and the miniature focusing ring at the front is ridiculous. The quality of images on the 17-55 is like velvet, there are lovely sweet spots that, when I remember where they are, give you magic pictures. I use it 90% of the time, even at weddings - I'd prefer to stay with this lens and move forward than swap to the 70-200, although I certainly do use that too.
I can't comment on the Tamron, haven't tried it. I did the Nikon/Sigma thing with the 70-200, and bought the Sigma. Its settled down now, after being sent back to the suppliers, and it doesn't have VR so I have to use insane ISO sometimes, but it can take very nice pictures.

Dirt_Diver

Nikon D3s

04/12/2009 09:03:37 PM · #18

Well I've made my decision when the extra money comes in and I'm going to go with the Tamron 17-50mm and here's why. I can't see much of a difference in picture quality wide open when shooting outside, which in MY case is where I am 95% of the time. If I was in very low light situations (theater) like someone said towards the beginning of this thread then I would go with the Nikon 17-55mm.

Now if I had the cash for the Nikon then I would take that one over the Tamron but again that isn't the best solution for me.

So Eric I guess the question you should ask yourself is

1. Can you afford the Nikon 17-55m?
2. If not are you willing to wait for it?
3. How fast do you need the lens.
4. Do you shoot outside with lots of light or inside with just about none.
5. What do you plan to use the lens for?

04/12/2009 09:48:26 PM · #19

ok... well...

I can afford it if I want to, but it's an issue of whether i'd be too afraid to take it with me anywhere...

back to the reason why I have a D90 instead of a D300... D90 gives BASICALLY the exact same end result pic as the D300, so I decided to save the $600 and use that to buy an 18-200mm VR lens...

same deal with the nikon and tamron... if the Tamron is BASICALLY just as good, then why not save $1000 ???

I would be using it mainly for indoors...

Have you noticed that indoors the nikon one is better than the Tamron? I have heard that the tamron is just as good wide open...

I want to be able to use it indoors for weddings...

let me know...

Here;s the statistics I'm looking for...

If I rank the nikon 18-55mm Kit at -> 1/10

and Nikon 17-55mm at -> 10/10

then the Tamron would be at -> ? /10

thanks what I'm lookin for... =)

Message edited by author 2009-04-12 21:52:00.

04/12/2009 09:57:37 PM · #20

Eric, I think you have already seen this. But from Photozone.de,

Nikon 17-55 f/2.8:
Optical Quality: 3.5/5.0
Mechanical Quality: 5.0/5.0
Price/Performance: 2.5/5.0

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8:
Optical Quality: 3.5/5.0
Mechanical Quality: 3.5/5.0
Price/Performance: 5.0/5.0

Did I just make your choice more difficult? :-)

Message edited by author 2009-04-12 21:58:53.

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di for Nikon

04/12/2009 09:59:04 PM · #21

=)

well, i did see that... and that tells me to go buy the Tamron right?

I just wanted some user feedback before I try and order it tomorrow... =)

Maverick

Nikon D200

04/12/2009 11:21:12 PM · #22

I've got the Nikon 17-55 and love it - it is my favorite and most used lens and is very sharp wide open - a great photojournalism / wedding lens.

Never tried the Tamron

04/14/2009 08:05:26 PM · #23

ok... I just ordered the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens...

it came to a total of $410 US Brand NEW including all taxes and shipping... (from Canadian dealer... I live in Canada)

I think that's a fair deal considering Adorama has it for $430 + tax + shipping

.

ben4345

Nikon D700

04/14/2009 10:26:40 PM · #24

Not sure if anyone here mentioned the SL0o0Oo0OWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW autofocus the tamron? In good lighting it's fine, but lower than ideal, it's MUCH slower than a 18-55 kit lens.