Do I really need the Tamron 17-50 2.8?

Zarch

Zarch

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,005
Name
Mick
Edit My Images
Yes
First off, I have 35mm 1.8 for my D3100.

I use this indoors when chasing my little girl around the house, but at times I find 35mm not wide enough in cramped situations, but the faster glass is very useful in suspect lighting.

For my main outdoor lens, after upgrading from the 18-55 kit lens to a 18-70 and then adding 55-200 VR to the collection I've now bought a 18-200 VR instead, as I was sick of not having the right lens on when I needed it whilst on days out.

But indoors, I don't see this lens being up to the job in suspect light. :thinking:

Having read reviews etc, the non-VC version of the Tamron 17-50 2.8 stands out as the lens to have in that range. I appreciate i'm duplicating range with my 35mm and 18-200, but the usage will be different.

I can't afford the Nikon version and the Sigma version doesn't appear to be as good as the Tamron.

So are there any other choices i've not considered?
Why are the Nikon versions of the Tamron more expensive than Canon?
Why are they like gold dust 2nd hand?
Anything to look out for when buying? (especially 2nd hand)

Any other thoughts would be very much appreciated.
 
This is a lens I'm considering getting next - I had been thinking of the 35mm f1.8 but was thinking the 17-50 would give me a better range. (I'm having trouble finding a non VC though, unless I order from HK? They don't seem to come up S/H that often.)
 
(I'm having trouble finding a non VC though, unless I order from HK? They don't seem to come up S/H that often.)
Click to expand...

That kinda answers the question. Excellent bang for the buck seems to be the general consensus and the fact you can hardly find a S/H non VC model bears that out.
 
Consider the sigma 18-50 f2.8 hsm. I picked one up for 160 as new and I believe it focuses faster than the tamron and is just as Sharp
 
jamin100 said:
Consider the sigma 18-50 f2.8 hsm. I picked one up for 160 as new and I believe it focuses faster than the tamron and is just as Sharp
Click to expand...

But the Siggy isnt a constant f/2.8, and from reading reviews it's not quite as sharp as the Tamron. You do get HSM and OS but I think the constant f/2.8 is more important to the op.
 
odd jim said:
But the Siggy isnt a constant f/2.8, and from reading reviews it's not quite as sharp as the Tamron. You do get HSM and OS but I think the constant f/2.8 is more important to the op.
Click to expand...

Jim,

I believe there are 2 versions.

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro

And I assume Ben is referring to the constant 2.8 version?

Food for thought...... :thinking:
 
ShoeQueen said:
This is a lens I'm considering getting next - I had been thinking of the 35mm f1.8 but was thinking the 17-50 would give me a better range. (I'm having trouble finding a non VC though, unless I order from HK? They don't seem to come up S/H that often.)
Click to expand...

Amazon have the non vc in stock for £258 brand new.
 
odd jim said:
Amazon have the non vc in stock for £258 brand new.
Click to expand...

Do you have the link? The Canon mount is that price, but not the Nikon. :thinking:
 
Zarch said:
Jim,

I believe there are 2 versions.

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro

And I assume Ben is referring to the constant 2.8 version?

Food for thought...... :thinking:
Click to expand...

Yeh I have the constant f2.8 and mine is really sharp. I decided to go with the sigma because of the faster focusing. Like you I am chasing young children around so need fast focus
 
These days, it's pretty much the only lens I use. So yeah... you pretty much have its lengths covered with your other lenses but it's definitely glass worth getting.
 
I'm sort of swaying towards the suggestion regarding the 18-50 2.8 Sigma. Especially if it focuses quicker than the Tamron. As Ben says, when chasing kids, that what I will need most.

I'm no pro, so I doubt i'll be pixel peeping enough to see a vast difference between the Tamron and Sigma. They are both good and a step up from kit-lens and my 18-200.

Plus, I might end up being cheaper! :thumbs:

Are there any AF issues on my D3100 not having a motor with these Sigmas?
 
Zarch said:
Do you have the link? The Canon mount is that price, but not the Nikon. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Er its Amazon, just type 'Tamron 17-50'!

Lol, but here it is;

https://www.amazon.co.uk/TAMRON-17-...AWPQ/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1313664276&sr=8-5

Ignore the "for Nikon d40" its for any crop Nikon (which is what I think they were alluding to. Its £269 so a little more than the Canon fit.

Only 1 in stock, its through a marketplace company but fuilfilled by Amazon. Others in stock for Nikon too but some are a little more.
 
Last edited:
.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
The Sigma isnt a constant f/2.8 you know that dont you? A very different lens.
Click to expand...

It is, there are 2 versions that I posted earlier??
 
Zarch said:
Jim,

I believe there are 2 versions.

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro

And I assume Ben is referring to the constant 2.8 version?

Food for thought...... :thinking:
Click to expand...

Do you mean the 17-50 f/2.8? I didnt think they did an 18-50 constant f/2.8?
 
Zarch said:
Thanks Jim, reason I asked for the link is that Amazon is awful sometimes. You type Tamron 17-50 and you get anything but........ Amazon Rant over! :lol:
Click to expand...

Lol, there are loads from different marketplace retailers as well! Either way, you get Amazon service and backup :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
They're obviously very different lenses, both very useful focal lengths although the 24-70 is a bit unusual on a crop body.
 
I used to have a 18-200mm, then bought a Tamron 17-50mm mine is the non VC one but has built in focus motor, I bought it from warehouse express. .. I have since sold the my 18-200mm as I rarely used it, then bought a nikon 70-210mm f/4.. I then bought a 50-150mm f/2.8.. so I now has 17-150mm covered in f/2.8

I have also owned a sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and it was sharp too.. I would personally say the the tamron focuses faster than the siggy..

Get the f/2.8 mines basically stays on all the time..
 
Not tried the siggy equivalent but I have the tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC and it is a huge improvement over kit lenses.

It's sharp and fast focusing!

It's probably splitting hairs between the siggy and the tamron when it comes to speed and IQ.
 
Christ knows what to do.

Sigma? Tamron?

Primarily use the 35mm indoors, then when cramped keep the 18-70 and just bump the ISO?

Decisions decisions.......
 
Zarch said:
Christ knows what to do.

Sigma? Tamron?

Primarily use the 35mm indoors, then when cramped keep the 18-70 and just bump the ISO?

Decisions decisions.......
Click to expand...

To be honest which ever lens you choose you'll be impressed with the IQ etc.
I'd just try to find the cheapest good one...
 
I bought the non VC 17-50mm tamron about a month ago and the pics always come out crisp and copes well with most light! A great buy for all users!!
 
From memory, I believe the older first generation Tamron 17-50 do not have a built in focus motor so will not autofocus on a D3100 - just a cautionary note if buying used.
Other than that - a cracking lens for the money - I love mine (its not for sale!)
 
technics100 said:
I used to have a 18-200mm, then bought a Tamron 17-50mm mine is the non VC one but has built in focus motor, I bought it from warehouse express.
Click to expand...
I was just looking at it on Warehouse Express earlier tonight... been wondering whether to get this or a 35mm f1.8...
 
I was out shooting with this lens on a 40D yesterday and was astounded at its shaprness, it also has a pretty good MFD.
 
I got the Sigma 17-50, after quite a bit of debating what to get, and think it's fantastic.
 
AlfyB said:
I got the Sigma 17-50, after quite a bit of debating what to get, and think it's fantastic.
Click to expand...

The Sigma 17-50 is more expensive that the 18-50 version, but is of better quality I understand.

So in NEW price order (lowest to highest)

Sigma 18-50 (£260)
Tamron 17-50 (£270)
Sigma 17-50 (£450)
Nikon 17-55 (£995)

So the bottom 2 of not options for me.

I'd love to pick up the Tamron, but i'm worried about speed of auto-focus. My little girl moves pretty quick and i've heard reports of the Tamron hunting quite a lot (indoors?), which wouldn't be good. IQ wise, I have no problems from what i'm being told.

The Sigma AF is better I believe, but the IQ is apparently worse than my 18-70, but obviously has the constant 2.8 advantage.

I appreciate all these cheaper options have compromises, but its decided where to take the hit.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the Tamron hunts that much in low light indoor shots.

One thing about the Tamron is the sound it makes when focusing. It makes it sound slow but I can assure you it locks on pretty quick.
I use mine alot for indoor shots of the cat and my nephew and its never hesitated for focus.
 
OP - have you looked at a used 17-55 Nikon? I used a Tammy for quite a while but moved over to the Nikon for the build.... bought used (£595 from a shop) and was blown away in every respect; build is amazing, AF is miles better than anything else and IQ is as good as the 24-70. Try one and you'll want one... :)
 
specialman said:
OP - have you looked at a used 17-55 Nikon? I used a Tammy for quite a while but moved over to the Nikon for the build.... bought used (£595 from a shop) and was blown away in every respect; build is amazing, AF is miles better than anything else and IQ is as good as the 24-70. Try one and you'll want one... :)
Click to expand...

Hi Pat,

As much I can appreciate how damn good it probably is, there is no way I can justify paying £600 for a lens. :thumbsdown:

2nd hand around £180 for a Tamron/Sigma is more my budget and accept the shortcomings of either when compared to the Nikon.
 
Basically the Tamron is sharper than any of the Sigmas except the newest version that costs about 500 quid.
 
Zarch said:
Hi Pat,

As much I can appreciate how damn good it probably is, there is no way I can justify paying £600 for a lens. :thumbsdown:

2nd hand around £180 for a Tamron/Sigma is more my budget and accept the shortcomings of either when compared to the Nikon.
Click to expand...

Fair play, that's a good way of looking at things. I have to say, my Tammy was an exceptional performer for what I paid off fleabay (think it was £160 used for the Mk2) and it was only me wanting the 17-55, and the lens showing too much use that I ended up swapping as quickly as I did. I was not shooting as a living, the tammy would probably have been in use much longer it was that good. :)
 
Thanks for all the comments. After reading more about the Tamron, i'm leaning back towards it. :lol:

What i'm reading in reviews on and on other forums is that the AF isn't slow(its actually quick). What people are saying is that it can hunt and its accuracy is hit and miss in low light.

So I suppose my question is "what constitutes low light" that the Tamron suffers under?

Dark Churches?
Night Scenes?
My front room, curtains closed with wall lights on?
My front room with no lights on in late winter afternoons?

I hope someone knows what i'm getting at? I'm not after shooting pitch black, just around the house as winter draws in and in the evenings! LOL.
 
Zarch said:
So in NEW price order (lowest to highest)

Sigma 18-50 (£260)
Tamron 17-50 (£270)
Sigma 17-50 (£450)
Nikon 17-55 (£995)
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's a helpful list.

I'd love the Nikon, but I think I'll get the Tamron as for now its a more realistic price bracket for me.
 
Zarch said:
Thanks for all the comments. After reading more about the Tamron, i'm leaning back towards it. :lol:

What i'm reading in reviews on and on other forums is that the AF isn't slow(its actually quick). What people are saying is that it can hunt and its accuracy is hit and miss in low light.

So I suppose my question is "what constitutes low light" that the Tamron suffers under?

Dark Churches?
Night Scenes?
My front room, curtains closed with wall lights on?
My front room with no lights on in late winter afternoons?

I hope someone knows what i'm getting at? I'm not after shooting pitch black, just around the house as winter draws in and in the evenings! LOL.
Click to expand...

Hi mick,

I have owned the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 constant EX macro for about 18 months, brought it new from amazon, never had any problems with low light photography, I have used in most situations such as weddings, fireworks, general indoors. And I find the focus is always fast & locks on to the subject. I do find a bit soft on the corners with my D7000 but other than that its a sharp as can be, very good value imho. Whatever you choose to buy, I dont think you'd go far wrong, just my 2p's worth. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
TBH, I think the Tamron focuses almost as fast as any USM lens, its certainly no slouch. I've had mine for a few years now and its never let me down when I needed to get a shot. Razor sharp too. The only lens I would ever consider to replace it is the Canon 17-55 because of the IS but at around £600 second hand I don't think I will be getting one any time soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top