Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8?
Jun 18, 2016 03:57:02 #
kb6kgx
Loc: Simi Valley, CA
Yes, I know the obvious choice is likely the Nikon. But the lowest I’ve seen, on Amazon, for the Nikon is between $550-600, while a NEW Tamron is $499. I’ve seen the Tamron, used/“like new”, from $250 to $399.
For $250, I can’t see the problem with the Tamron, but would be Nikon be almost three times the lens in terms of build and image quality? Supposedly, it’s the best DX (midrange) zoom available.
For $250, I can’t see the problem with the Tamron, but would be Nikon be almost three times the lens in terms of build and image quality? Supposedly, it’s the best DX (midrange) zoom available.
Jun 18, 2016 05:37:44 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
kb6kgx wrote:
Yes, I know the obvious choice is likely the Nikon. But the lowest I’ve seen, on Amazon, for the Nikon is between $550-600, while a NEW Tamron is $499. I’ve seen the Tamron, used/“like new”, from $250 to $399.
For $250, I can’t see the problem with the Tamron, but would be Nikon be almost three times the lens in terms of build and image quality? Supposedly, it’s the best DX (midrange) zoom available.
For $250, I can’t see the problem with the Tamron, but would be Nikon be almost three times the lens in terms of build and image quality? Supposedly, it’s the best DX (midrange) zoom available.
It really comes down to you. What do you want to shoot with. And, there is a reason used "like new" Tamron's sell for so much less than used Nikon's. New the Tamron is $50.00 savings, but when and if you go to sell it, it will be worth a lot less than and used Nikon. What does that tell you?
Jun 18, 2016 05:50:40 #
kb6kgx wrote:
Yes, I know the obvious choice is likely the Nikon. But the lowest I’ve seen, on Amazon, for the Nikon is between $550-600, while a NEW Tamron is $499. I’ve seen the Tamron, used/“like new”, from $250 to $399.
For $250, I can’t see the problem with the Tamron, but would be Nikon be almost three times the lens in terms of build and image quality? Supposedly, it’s the best DX (midrange) zoom available.
For $250, I can’t see the problem with the Tamron, but would be Nikon be almost three times the lens in terms of build and image quality? Supposedly, it’s the best DX (midrange) zoom available.
Used/like new can be a good deal. See what the pros say.
https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare
http://www.lenscore.org/
Jun 18, 2016 06:28:39 #
First of all there are 3 different versions of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. The oldest is an AF-D with no focusing motor. Next newer one has a focus motor but no VR. Latest incarnation has a focus motor and VR. According to various test sources the best copies optically are the two older (non VR) versions.
I have the version with the focus motor but no VR which is on my D7200 pretty much all the time. I was able to get the lens new through Amazon (about 6 month ago) as a grey-market import for 200 bucks. At this focal length range I don't think VR is an absolut necessity and I much rather have the 2.8 constant aperture. The lens is very sharp from f/4 on (2.8 is a bit soft in the corners but usable!) and the built quality is better (metal mount) than the various kit zooms from Nikon. If I had to nitpick, auto-focus is not super-fast and somewhat noisy and the focusing ring turns when focusing.
My take on this is that for 200 bucks you get a very nice new sharp and decently built lens with a constant f/2.8 aperture. At this price point who cares if it accidentally gets dropped or dies in the next 5-10 years. If you order it through amazon you can even return it if you don't like it. For the price difference you could also get another lens like a nice prime.
The 17-55mm Nikon on the other hand reminds me of a Rolex watch. Sure it looks nice, it might hold it's value better and you can use it as a status symbol with your fellow gear snobs. But the question remains, should you spend all that money on that fancy watch if all you want to do is tell accurate time.
I have the version with the focus motor but no VR which is on my D7200 pretty much all the time. I was able to get the lens new through Amazon (about 6 month ago) as a grey-market import for 200 bucks. At this focal length range I don't think VR is an absolut necessity and I much rather have the 2.8 constant aperture. The lens is very sharp from f/4 on (2.8 is a bit soft in the corners but usable!) and the built quality is better (metal mount) than the various kit zooms from Nikon. If I had to nitpick, auto-focus is not super-fast and somewhat noisy and the focusing ring turns when focusing.
My take on this is that for 200 bucks you get a very nice new sharp and decently built lens with a constant f/2.8 aperture. At this price point who cares if it accidentally gets dropped or dies in the next 5-10 years. If you order it through amazon you can even return it if you don't like it. For the price difference you could also get another lens like a nice prime.
The 17-55mm Nikon on the other hand reminds me of a Rolex watch. Sure it looks nice, it might hold it's value better and you can use it as a status symbol with your fellow gear snobs. But the question remains, should you spend all that money on that fancy watch if all you want to do is tell accurate time.
Jun 18, 2016 07:33:33 #
It all depends upon your budget and knowledge of the differences between the Nikon and Tamron. If it were me, I would go with the Nikon, but that is me. No UHH can make that decision for you.
kb6kgx wrote:
Yes, I know the obvious choice is likely the Nikon. But the lowest I’ve seen, on Amazon, for the Nikon is between $550-600, while a NEW Tamron is $499. I’ve seen the Tamron, used/“like new”, from $250 to $399.
For $250, I can’t see the problem with the Tamron, but would be Nikon be almost three times the lens in terms of build and image quality? Supposedly, it’s the best DX (midrange) zoom available.
For $250, I can’t see the problem with the Tamron, but would be Nikon be almost three times the lens in terms of build and image quality? Supposedly, it’s the best DX (midrange) zoom available.
Jun 18, 2016 08:45:49 #
Sigma 17-50 f2.8 is better rated than both the Nikon and Tamron and at a good price point.
Jun 18, 2016 10:10:00 #
kb6kgx
Loc: Simi Valley, CA
Thank you for all of your suggestions and advice. I'll do some more research.
Jun 19, 2016 05:30:23 #
photocat
Loc: Atlanta, Ga
Is it possible to find both locally? Then goin and test them. Each at major stops and focal lengths. Then go hoe and view their gets on your monitor and you will have your answer
I make this suggestion to all my students whentheyask and do it for myself whenever buying new equipment
I make this suggestion to all my students whentheyask and do it for myself whenever buying new equipment
Jun 19, 2016 07:24:51 #
jederick wrote:
Sigma 17-50 f2.8 is better rated than both the Nikon and Tamron and at a good price point.
I picked up one of these used for $265 and am more than satisfied with the images it produces. Only time will tell if it holds up as well as nikon but it looks and feels well made(and it is made in Japan).Jun 19, 2016 08:11:59 #
I am sure that you could be happy with both. A $50 savings is not a lot of money today.
Go Nikon.
Go Nikon.
Jun 19, 2016 08:16:04 #
kb6kgx wrote:
Yes, I know the obvious choice is likely the Nikon. But the lowest I’ve seen, on Amazon, for the Nikon is between $550-600, while a NEW Tamron is $499. I’ve seen the Tamron, used/“like new”, from $250 to $399.
For $250, I can’t see the problem with the Tamron, but would be Nikon be almost three times the lens in terms of build and image quality? Supposedly, it’s the best DX (midrange) zoom available.
For $250, I can’t see the problem with the Tamron, but would be Nikon be almost three times the lens in terms of build and image quality? Supposedly, it’s the best DX (midrange) zoom available.
Buy the Nikon and don't look back. No, it is not three times better--but it is better, and that little bit of "better", and peace of mind is worth the money.
Jun 19, 2016 10:04:26 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
Buy the Nikon and don't look back. No, it is not three times better--but it is better, and that little bit of "better", and peace of mind is worth the money.
Well put. Had the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and didn't like the shots from it. Gave it to our son, who used it on a few weddings and got great pictures. We left it with him, he loves it. Who's to know. Leon
Jun 19, 2016 11:09:25 #
DVZ
Loc: Littleton CO
A friend lent me his Nikon 17-55 for a wedding and it focused much faster than my non VR Tameron for sure. However, I have taken thousands and thousands of photos with my Tameron and it's been a great lens. My experience with Tameron's customer service has been positive as well. I also have Nikon's pro lenses (which the 17-55 is) for full frame and what great lenses they are, much better build quality, much heavier too. I pair the Tameron with my light D-5100 body and I like that combination. For a more advanced body and if money wasn't an issue I might look at the Nikon.
Jun 19, 2016 11:50:02 #
You get what you pay for between Tamron and Nikon. The Nikon will win all the time. However, like was posted above, the Sigma competes with the Nikon very well at a lower cost.
Jun 19, 2016 15:08:08 #
kb6kgx wrote:
Yes, I know the obvious choice is likely the Nikon. But the lowest I’ve seen, on Amazon, for the Nikon is between $550-600, while a NEW Tamron is $499. I’ve seen the Tamron, used/“like new”, from $250 to $399.
For $250, I can’t see the problem with the Tamron, but would be Nikon be almost three times the lens in terms of build and image quality? Supposedly, it’s the best DX (midrange) zoom available.
For $250, I can’t see the problem with the Tamron, but would be Nikon be almost three times the lens in terms of build and image quality? Supposedly, it’s the best DX (midrange) zoom available.
I have this lens and it's the only lens the will never be sold on ( DX Nikon 17 to 55 ) I have had FX 24 to 70 @ 2.8 and the 70 to 200 @ 2.8 both history
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.