Nikon 18-70 vs Tamron 17-50 2.8

Doug

Doug

Suspended / Banned
Messages
947
Name
Doug
Edit My Images
Yes
What do we think here people?

I currently have the 18-70 Nikon (lovely lens) but I am tempted by the Tamron 17-50 2.8.

Am I going mad?

I assume I could sell the Nikon fairly quickly as its in mint cond. But would I be able to pick up a second hand Tamron for say £150-200?

What are they like on the D300?

Seem to be fairly well regarded in the reviews that I have read so far.
Would this be an upgrade or more cash for the same IQ, less range but better speed?
 
Both are excellent.

Do you need the f/2.8 and the wider 1mm or the extra 20mm?

Let the answer to that guide you.
 
I have been asked to shoot at a boxing match:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=168350

So thinking that I could probably benefit from some fast glass for the occasion. Although I have to say that I do wish I could get a 18-200 in 2.8!

I do like having the extra 20mm reach and there are occasions when I wish for more. Maybe I should get the Tamron and a Nikon 18-200VR later on.
 
Question for Puddleduck. Does the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 compare well to the much more expensive 17-55 f2.8 Nikon or do you get what you pay for? Any issues with the Tamron like slow focusing or anything?
 
miurasv said:
Question for Puddleduck. Does the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 compare well to the much more expensive 17-55 f2.8 Nikon or do you get what you pay for? Any issues with the Tamron like slow focusing or anything?
Click to expand...

I`ll answer that in Andys absence, he recommended the Tamron to me.

If you put two images side by side from both lenses, you would not tell the difference.Yes ,I have both lenses.

The Tamron is not as well made,nowhere near as heavy, is damned near every bit as sharp, is a load cheaper, but is not the solid longlasting lump the Nikkor is.

Conclusion, if you don`t hurl it about,the tamron is a good buy for the money..:)
 
fracster said:
I`ll answer that in Andys absence, he recommended the Tamron to me.

If you put two images side by side from both lenses, you would not tell the difference.Yes ,I have both lenses.

The Tamron is not as well made,nowhere near as heavy, is damned near every bit as sharp, is a load cheaper, but is not the solid longlasting lump the Nikkor is.

Conclusion, if you don`t hurl it about,the tamron is a good buy for the money..:)
Click to expand...

:agree:

A secondhand Tamron 17-50 is a fantastic lens for the money, the only fault that ever really comes up is a loose filter mount, but a couple of minutes with a screwdriver will sort that :thumbs:
 
I did have the 18-70 and thought it was very good. I now have the Nikon 17-55 on my D300 and this is much better. Never tried the Tamron but as people say it is very close to the Nikon 2.8 I would say it would be better than the 18-70 BUT I do miss that extra reach at times.

Not sure if that answers your question!!!
 
Thanks very much, Fracster. Is the build a lot poorer on the Tamron?
 
miurasv said:
Thanks very much, Fracster. Is the build a lot poorer on the Tamron?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't describe it as poor build quality however the very top of the line Nikon lenses are certainly weighty, robust and built like tanks.
 
sdb123 said:
I wouldn't describe it as poor build quality however the very top of the line Nikon lenses are certainly weighty, robust and built like tanks.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply, sdb123 and sorry about hijacking this thread, Doug. I guess there's the rub in the build of the Tamron but the 17-55 2.8 isn't a top of the line Nikon, or is it? Just read a good review on the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 AT X Pro too which said it was built very well.
 
miurasv said:
Thanks for your reply, sdb123 and sorry about hijacking this thread, Doug. I guess there's the rub in the build of the Tamron but the 17-55 2.8 isn't a top of the line Nikon, or is it? Just read a good review on the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 AT X Pro too which said it was built very well.
Click to expand...

Looks like the Tokina is a fair bit more expensive.

The Tamron can be had for £250 delivered from Hong Kong :eek:
 
miurasv said:
Thanks for your reply, sdb123 and sorry about hijacking this thread, Doug. I guess there's the rub in the build of the Tamron but the 17-55 2.8 isn't a top of the line Nikon, or is it? Just read a good review on the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 AT X Pro too which said it was built very well.
Click to expand...

The Nikon is a top of the line lens (in DX terms) - it isw pretty much the DX equivalent to the 24-70mm.

Tokina lenses are very well made.
 
miurasv said:
Thanks very much, Fracster. Is the build a lot poorer on the Tamron?
Click to expand...

The Nikkor is much better built,heavier and I would say more a pro piece of glass,as the price indicates. However, importantly, the image quality is damned near as good, and I mean damned near at a fraction of the price.

The Tamron I have is the old one without the motor,I don`t need inbuilt motors for my cameras as they are old, the AF is effectively as quick as well.

17-55 isn`t top of the line? For DX lenses it`ll take some beating.
 
fracster said:
The Nikkor is much better built,heavier and I would say more a pro piece of glass,as the price indicates. However, importantly, the image quality is damned near as good, and I mean damned near at a fraction of the price.

The Tamron I have is the old one without the motor,I don`t need inbuilt motors for my cameras as they are old, the AF is effectively as quick as well.

17-55 isn`t top of the line? For DX lenses it`ll take some beating.
Click to expand...

So the Nikon is the Daddy and the one to get if money is no object. It's hard to resist such a bargain as the Tamron though. Is the difference in image quality between the Nikon 18-55 kit lens and the 17-55 like night and day as one would think given the price difference?
 
miurasv said:
So the Nikon is the Daddy and the one to get if money is no object. It's hard to resist such a bargain as the Tamron though. Is the difference in image quality between the Nikon 18-55 kit lens and the 17-55 like night and day as one would think given the price difference?
Click to expand...

Never had the 18-55 so can`t comment on that,sorry.
 
I think I am truely sold on the Tamron!

I shall pop my 18-70 up for sale shortly and pick up a Tamron :)
 
Doug said:
Looks like the Tokina is a fair bit more expensive.

The Tamron can be had for £250 delivered from Hong Kong :eek:
Click to expand...

i wander how much it is over there?

i love my tamron 28-75 f2.8
 
The Tamron is a really nice lens, fast, light and really sharp. Sure it's not built as solidly but it's a quarter of the price. If you don't rely on your lenses for business, get the Tamron. I have had both and would have like to have held on to the Tamron if I could have as it made a very nice companiion for my D40. Ah well...!
 
I tried the Tamron on the Fuji S5 and yes it is sharp and can produce very good images but the colour IMO is very different compared to Nikon lenses. Speed is not everything.

You could also try the 16-85 VR a very good lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top