Nikon 16-85 vs. Tamron 17-50: Looking (still!) for good "walk around" for a D7100. Pretty much decided on the 16-85mm f3.5-5.6. But now I'm thinking maybe the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8? The...

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Looking (still!) for good "walk around" for a D7100. Pretty much decided on the 16-85mm f3.5-5.6.

But now I'm thinking maybe the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8? The constant f2.8 would be nice, but I'd read that the Nikon is sharper, has les distortion and better VR.

I'd love the 17-55mm f2.8, but better condition ones are more than I care to pay at this time.

Comments?

craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

kb6kgx wrote:

Looking (still!) for good "walk around" for a D7100. Pretty much decided on the 16-85mm f3.5-5.6.

But now I'm thinking maybe the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8? The constant f2.8 would be nice, but I'd read that the Nikon is sharper, has les distortion and better VR.

I'd love the 17-55mm f2.8, but better condition ones are more than I care to pay at this time.

Comments?

Just thought I'd chuck this lens into your mix - great review from "Nikon's" Thom Hogan .....

http://www.bythom.com/Sigma17-50mm_lens_review.htm

I had one on a D300 and was mighty pleased. You might get a good example in your good used markets. Always good to have options.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

kb6kgx wrote:

.....Pretty much decided on the 16-85mm f3.5-5.6......

No complaints about mine. Sharpness is one of its lesser virtues. According to the reviews I've seen, low CA and good contrast are its main strengths. Where sharpness is concerned it lags behind the likes of the Nikkor 18-140, but that doesn't mean it's soft.

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

craggycrossers wrote:

Just thought I'd chuck this lens into your mix - great review from "Nikon's" Thom Hogan .....

http://www.bythom.com/Sigma17-50mm_lens_review.htm

I had one on a D300 and was mighty pleased. You might get a good example in your good used markets. Always good to have options.

I have one on the Pentax and very happy with it. On sale now for 369.00- nice to buy new.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Yes, I should amend my title (but it won't let me) to include the Sigma. I read many reviews that said the lens elements "rattle" is that true? Is that actually common among zooms?

klaus Loc: Guatemala City, Guatemala

You can find the older Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (with focus motor but without VR) in the mid-two hundred dollar range. It's also supposed to be sharper than the VR version.
I have one on my D7200 most of the time and really like it as a walkaround lens because of its size and weight. At that focal range VR is not an absolute necessity and the low price makes it a nice upgrade to the kit lenses. For the price difference to the 16-85 you could also get a refurbished 35mm or 50mm prime at the same time.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

klaus wrote:

You can find the older Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (with fo... (show quote)

Good suggestion. No, I wouldn't think that VR would be needed for any of the short zooms. The price difference (between the VR and non-VR Tamrons is significant.

I already have a 50mm f1.8D, but I've read great things about the 35mm f1.8G. Not sure I'd need that, though.

jederick Loc: Northern Utah

I had the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 on my Nikon D7100 and it was fantastic...a very sharp, contrasty lens with great color rendition and IQ...would highly recommend this combo. When I sold the camera I let the lens go with it...big mistake. Now have a D7200 and Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4.0 and like the extra margins at both ends but it is not a big improvement lens wise over what I had. Hope this helps.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

jederick wrote:

I had the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 on my Nikon D7100 and it was fantastic...a very sharp, contrasty lens with great color rendition and IQ...would highly recommend this combo. When I sold the camera I let the lens go with it...big mistake. Now have a D7200 and Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4.0 and like the extra margins at both ends but it is not a big improvement lens wise over what I had. Hope this helps.

Yes, it helps, thanks.

With the Sigma, you didn't have a problem with the rattle that some have mentioned? I'd also read that the zoom ring turns in the opposite direction from what you're used to. I suppose or easily gets used to that. I'd also read that the focus ring turns with the AF and that some don't like that. But, then, it does on my 50mm f1.8D, also.

Between the Sigma and the Tamron, which is the "better" all around lens? Looks like the Sigma is the same price as the non-AF Tamron.

CO

I have the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. It's sharp and has excellent build quality. The zoom and focus rings turn precisely without looseness. It has well controlled distortion. LensTip.com does extensive lens testing. Check these links for their testing for image resolution and distortion.

Nikon 16-85mm image resolution.
http://www.lenstip.com/199.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_16-85_mm_f_3.5-5.6G_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html

Tamron 17-50mm image resolution
http://www.lenstip.com/18.4-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_AF_17-50_mm_f_2.8_XR_Di_II_LD_Aspherical_(IF)_Image_resolution.html

Nikon 16-85mm distortion
http://www.lenstip.com/199.6-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_16-85_mm_f_3.5-5.6G_ED_VR_Distortion.html

Tamron 17-50mm distortion
http://www.lenstip.com/18.6-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_AF_17-50_mm_f_2.8_XR_Di_II_LD_Aspherical_(IF)_Distortion.html

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

CO wrote:

I have the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. It's shar... (show quote)

I couldn't pull up the Tamron links. I'd be curious to read them.....I do have the 16-85....

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

I couldn't pull up the Tamron links. I'd be curious to read them.....I do have the 16-85....

Just look at the Nikon link, then go to “Reviews” and change the parameters for the manufacturer and lens you want to look at.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

The best walking-around lens I have found is the Nikon 24-120.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

kb6kgx wrote:

Just look at the Nikon link, then go to “Reviews” and change the parameters for the manufacturer and lens you want to look at.

Well, doh! Head slap administered.

CO

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

I couldn't pull up the Tamron links. I'd be curious to read them.....I do have the 16-85....

Here is a link to the first page of the Tamron review. When you get to the bottom of the page you will see the eleven categories. Click on the ones you're interested in reading.

http://www.lenstip.com/18.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_AF_17-50_mm_f_2.8_XR_Di_II_LD_Aspherical_-Introduction.html