How good is Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (Nikon) and is the VC version much better?
- Thread starter miurasv
- Start date
billybob99
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,908
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
From reviews the non vc is the sharpest I've got the non vc albeit in Sony fit and it's a cracker
iced_jacob
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 599
- Name
- Iacovos
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's reported by a lot of people to be the best budget constant aperture walkabout APS-C lens. The VC version is not as sharp as the old one though...
chrisphoto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 289
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ive got the non VC version and the only really difference between it and the nikon 17-55mm is 5mm at the long end and the build quality. You'd be hard pressed to see a difference in picture quality.
I have owned both the VC version and the non-VC version of this lens in a Nikon fit. The non-VC version is definately the sharper of the 2 and gives good image quality but I have since upgraded to the nikon 24-70mm and the difference is worth the money. The build quality of the Tamron is OK and what you'd expect for the price tag, the image quality is good but the one thing that I found let it down was the lack of any real focus speed and it's inability to lock on to a target regularly enough. It's just one of the downsides to buying the cheaper lenses but if you're willing to put up with it then definately good value for money.
OP
miurasv
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 339
- Name
- Steve.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks very much for all your replies. It seems the Non VC is the one to go for and good VFM. Yes, I would like the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 but it costs £1250 which is precisely 5x what I can get the Tamron for at £250 new. The extra 7mm at the wide? end is useful too.