So i bought the tamron SP AF 17-50mm 2.8 XR Di II VC (nikon) lens today as an impulse buy. But now i'm re-thinking it. Whats your thoughts on the lens. Reviews are mixed...
Thanks
Thanks
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tamron 17-50 2.8
- Thread starter puckhead193
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wirelessly posted (my blackberry storm: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_8 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E401 Safari/6533.18.5)
The impulse buy of it. I didn't do much research on it and just want confirmation that it is a good lens for the price and that I wasn't had at the store.
Also the AF speed. I'm unsure about.
The impulse buy of it. I didn't do much research on it and just want confirmation that it is a good lens for the price and that I wasn't had at the store.
Also the AF speed. I'm unsure about.
I bought this lens when it first came out without doing much research to use on a D300,glad I made the impulse buy, AF speed is very good, the lens itself is very sharp, try using it without the VC switched on too, the image results are very good, it's just a really good upgrade to a basic kit lens, for walkabout it's a great buy, don't worry you made a good purchase there, if I didnt have a 5D2 then the 17-50 would have been a keeper, nice going enjoy the lens
Last edited:
thanks everyone for your insight! I plan on using it with my D90.
My other lenses in the bag are the 18-105 kit, 70-300 and the 35mm 1.8 DX.
Any other opinions?
My other lenses in the bag are the 18-105 kit, 70-300 and the 35mm 1.8 DX.
Any other opinions?
I have the non-VC version of this lens (I have in-body stabilization) and couldn't be happier with it. It's very sharp, even wide open. Unlike Canon's 17-55mm f/2.8 doesn't exhibit any zoom creep (at least my version), even though it has a zoom lock.
I tested it on my D90 and hated it. Some people like it and have had better results than I did. After playing with it, I decided from now on before I buy a lens, I would rent before buying.
That lens sell for what?? 650? You can get a Nikkor 17-55mm for around $800-900 used. The Tamron I tested had too much of that purple haze and I didn't like the results I got. When I rented the Nikkor, everything was a lot sharper.
http://www.lensprotogo.com/
https://www.lensrentals.com/for-nikon
http://www.rentglass.com/
If you like shooting around f/4 or f/2.8 then save up for a Nikkor lens. Maybe 10-20mm or 17-55mm or 24-70mm. Sell your 18-105mm there are a lot of users who hate their 18-55mm kit. But definitely try one for a couple days before deciding.
check the used section at keh.com
That lens sell for what?? 650? You can get a Nikkor 17-55mm for around $800-900 used. The Tamron I tested had too much of that purple haze and I didn't like the results I got. When I rented the Nikkor, everything was a lot sharper.
http://www.lensprotogo.com/
https://www.lensrentals.com/for-nikon
http://www.rentglass.com/
If you like shooting around f/4 or f/2.8 then save up for a Nikkor lens. Maybe 10-20mm or 17-55mm or 24-70mm. Sell your 18-105mm there are a lot of users who hate their 18-55mm kit. But definitely try one for a couple days before deciding.
check the used section at keh.com
Well, the VC version sells for around 650$ and tests show that the non-VC version is much better than the VC one, at least as far as the sharpness and CA are concerned, build quality is probably the same.
The non-VC version sells for around 400$ though and is (imho) a much better buy.
I too have the non-VC version. I think it's a fine lens so enjoy it (I no longer have a DX camera, but I kept the lens, just in case I get another DX body).
A general point: Nikon is not necessarily going to make better lenses than third parties. That's just reality. If you want the 'best' you might be surprised at how much - or little - you need to pay, and you won't always be buying from Nikon.
Why are you having buyer's regrets? From the sound of it, you're just scared by some reviews. Are you dissatisfied with the photos it produces? Optically, the non-VC version is better, but that hasn't stopped anyone from taking good photos. My favorite lens is Sigma's 30 mm f/1.4 lens: optically, it is not very good according to most reviews, but to me, there is no (affordable) substitute: once you get addicted to f/1.4 lenses, you don't want to go back.
The Tamron is a lot cheaper and gives you the same features as Canon's 17-55 mm f/2.8 (with the exception of the 5 extra mm). If the photo is good, nobody will ask you what lens you shot it with. Nobody will say `oh, look at the contrast in the corners!' Just enjoy your lens.
The Tamron is a lot cheaper and gives you the same features as Canon's 17-55 mm f/2.8 (with the exception of the 5 extra mm). If the photo is good, nobody will ask you what lens you shot it with. Nobody will say `oh, look at the contrast in the corners!' Just enjoy your lens.
Yup. `That shot couldn't have been made with a Canon, the colors, it must be a Nikon D7150!'True. They will ask you what camera-body you used...
Yup. `That shot couldn't have been made with a Canon, the colors, it must be a Nikon D7150!'
No way. Composition like that could only have been done with an M9.
True. They will ask you what camera-body you used...
"Nice, you obviously used the Canon EW-83J for this shot. I instantly recognize photos taken with this lens hood ..."
I was always told to use Leica cameras for the "decisive moment" shots, composition should only be attempted with medium format (or larger) cameras.