Best lens 17-50 length

[Dan74]

Looking to upgrade to a fast 17-50 type lens
anyone use the tokina 16-50 canon 17-55 tamron 17-50 or are they all much of a muchness?

 

[lexie]

the tamron 17-50 2.8 always seems to get good reviews(none vc version) £300ish should pick one up which i'm guessing is a lot less than the canon or nikon models. if you're on a budget it should see you right

 

[billybob99]

I've got the tamron 17-50 f2.8 sony fit non vc love it sharp as a tack got mine £240 new bargain in my eyes and a definate improvement on Sony kit lens

 

[Lardinio]

I too can recommend the Tamron. I have the non VC, non BIM version on my D300. Picked up used £240 off a dealer. Focus isn't the fastest, but you cannot argue with the output for the price. If you have more the new Sigma 17-50/2.8 HSM OS is getting some decent early reviews and can be picked up new for about £520+.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Tamron is sharp but has slow AF motor and rather cheap build quality. Canon is nicer but more expensive and won't fit D90.

 

[Dan74]

Hmm
How slow is the af on the tamron? i'll mainly be using it for gigs so need decent performance in low light
Is the vc version any faster?

 

[Dan74]

Daugirdas
Selling my nikon stuff and moving to canon

 

[ding76uk]

Dan, I used the Tamron for gig work before I went full frame. It really is fast enough for gig work (or at least I thought it was) and I had no problems with it. The Canon is a very nice lens, but a lot more expensive. IMHO You really can't go far wrong with the Tamron.

 

[joesmith]

Hmm
How slow is the af on the tamron? i'll mainly be using it for gigs so need decent performance in low light
Is the vc version any faster?

It isn't slow as such, just noisy. I find it focuses pretty quick but the noise makes it seem slower. Mine focuses pretty well in low light.

 

[Boldonian]

I had the Tokina 16-50 on my D300 . Excellent lens with superb build quality.

 

[Dan74]

Cheers carl
That's looking favorite
would like the canon but a bit too expensive

 

[Dan74]

That's reassuring joe cheers
Boldonian thanks for the input tokina does look bulletproof

 

[Boldonian]

That's reassuring joe cheers
Boldonian thanks for the input tokina does look bulletproof

It is! I had the Tamron 17-50 before the Tokina. The Tokina build was more akin to Nikkor whereas the Tamron felt a bit 'budget' . I much preferred the results I got with the Tokina as well.

 

[Dan74]

Hmmm

 

[cherokee1111]

Hmmm

right there with ya brother

I was set to fire on the Tamron but I had one before and it was definitly good but not great, a huge improvement over the kit lens but you want a long term keeper lens dont you? the Nikon 17-55 is far too expensive and the 16-85 is actually very good (some of my sharpest shots are with it, but so are some of my missed focus as well)
The reviews I'm seeing for this new 17-50 f2.8 Sigma are very very good indeed, plus it can be had online for about £60 more than the 16-85, I'd just like to feel and try a copy before buying but cant get one in the local camera shops.