Tamron 17-50 for wedding

<p>I am torn between paying $1200 for a Nikon 17-55 or $400 for the Tamron 17-50. I currently have a Tamron 17-50 for my D80 which is my second shooters camera now. I now have a D300 and am curious as to what others are using. The Tamron is a great lens for a great price. Is it worth me paying 3 times that for the Nikon or sticking with the Tamron? Thanks!</p>

<p>You can always go to borrowlens.com, rent it to see if it's what your looking for to replace a lens you seemed perfectly happy with. I like to use what works and if the Tamron was paying the bills, I can't see you getting that much more income from the Nikon lens. Now if you want to have everyone look at your rig and say "wow, that guy must be a pro, look at that lens" then it might be worth it to pick it up....sometimes presentation and perception DOES equal more income.</p>

<p>A toyota corolla and an S500 Benz both have 4 wheels and an engine and will get you from point A to B, but the Benz isn't more expensive just for the fun of it. I used a D300 and the Nikon 17-55 for a year last year and it was an excellent combination. This year I am using a D700 and a Nikon 28-70 - did I have to spend the money? No. Could I have stuck with my D200 from 2 years ago - sure. At the end of the day, its a business decision. Are you full time? Do you have the capital to finance the purchase. If I just paid $3,000+ for a photographer, he/she better bring nice glass. Will the Tamron hold you back? Are you charging the amount of money that warrants the 17-55? At the end of the day, you're not going to pick up the bride and groom at the reception in the Toyota. I'm not saying you should get the Nikon, just consider the factors and go from there.</p>

<p>How about putting a different focal length on the second camera? For the same cost as the Nikon 17-55 (which I wouldn't deny is a fantastic lens), you can get the Tamron 17-50, Nikon 85 1.8 and Tokina 12-24. </p>

<p>If the Tamron is working - stick with it. I've had some issues with mine, but I'm thinking it's the camera body, not the lens.</p>

<p>While the Nikon is a nice piece of glass - is it worth the $800.00 price difference? With the current economy I'd go with no.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>I have both and while the Nikon is a better piece of glass, the Tamron is also a very good lens. If you have the money to blow, go for the Nikon (some people think better glass euals better photos, but remember it is the Indian and not the arrow). If you are somewhat restricted, the Tamron will do a great job and most (if not all) people will not be able to notice the difference. I really like the suggestion of using the $1,200 for the three different lenses, which would add an incredible amount of flexibility to your kit.</p>

<p>Buy something with image stabilization. <br>

The Nikon 18-55 IS (kit lens) is quite good. So is the 55-200.<br>

A lot of the full-frame lenses are old designs, not optimized for digital.</p>

<p>I had this same question several months ago. I bought the Tamron after posting to this forum about it. I would not do it again- I would buy the Nikon 17-55 instead. I also have a Nikon D300.<br>

The Tamron lens has a problem communicating with the body. It will just stop focusing and you will get an F0 error. You can turn the camera on and off and the problem will go away, but if you're in the middle of a wedding, that couple of seconds can mean a lot. It is a real hassle- sometimes having this problem every tenth frame or so.<br>

I do not have this problem with my D300 with any of my other lenses (not all of which are Nikkors- I have a Sigma 105mm macro and a Tokina 12-24mm, both of which I love and which don't have this problem). I have cleaned the contacts for both the lens and the body, to no avail.<br>

I know other professionals like the Tamron 17-50, but you can also do a search for this lens & the F0 error and lots of people are having this problem. It is not limited to me or my camera body (as evidenced by my other lenses working properly).<br>

At the time, I didn't want to spend a lot on a lens that I would only use for weddings & events as I don't do them often enough (or for enough money) to justify the price, and I wanted another lens for my fun stuff. Six-plus months later, I realize I used this lens a lot more than I thought I would, and I wish I'd just waited on my fun lens and done the event lens right the first time.<br>

Get the Nikon 17-55.</p>

<p>I don't have the tamron, but I do use the Sigma 17-55 2.8 and have no complaints.</p>

<p>Forget the Toyota vs Merc analogy. Of course given a bottomless pocket go for the more expensive one as it is a little better. I have the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 for my 5D, and no way in hell am I going to pay 3 times as much for the Canon 24-70 F2.8. I cannot think of one single reason. If I won the lottery tomorrow, I would keep the Tamron and buy other lenses but not replace the Tamron with the Canon equivalent as I am more than happy with the Tamron.</p>

<p>If I can afford to buy the Nikon, I would go for it. I used to have the Tamron with bim and I thought af was very slow in low light situation and I had to send it to Tamron because of front focusing problem. Use it on both my D90 and D40X and same behavior. Optically though, very good for it's price. If you do decide to purchase the lens, make sure you have time to test it out carefully and send it to Tamron for any issues. I wouldn't use it right away on a wedding if you haven't tested it.</p>

<p>Abbie--since the Tamron has a 6 year warranty, I would send it to Tamron immediately to be fixed. The problem should not occur and there is no reason you should put up with it.</p>

<p>I have a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and am very happy with it.<br>

The only thing is: it makes so much noise while focusing! Sometimes when it can't find a focuspoint it will zoom in and out like every lense would, but the sound it makes is a little bit too much if you ask me. I am in doubt whether to use it for my first wedding, because I don't want to interrupt the whole ceremony with my focus-noises</p>

<p>Iris...I use the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 all the time for weddings, and it has a similar focusing sound to the 17-50mm f2.8, which I also have. No one has ever complained, and the few times someone close to me in the pews turned around to look where the noise was coming from, it was when I was using a Hasselblad (the shutter and mirror flap are noisy), not the Tamron. Besides, there is such a thing as turning off autofocus and manually focusing if you have concerns.</p>

<p>like the others there is a reason why nikon 17-55 is expensive and called a pro grade lens compared to the tamron. if tamron is just as good then everybody will be buying it. if cash is not an issue then get the nikon. like someone suggested rent the 17-55 and see if it is worth it but IMO save up for the 70-200 and you are all set. You already have the 17-50 anyway so why buy the same focal length? check out the 28-75 like nadine mentioned Ive heard good reviews about it .</p>

<p>Iris I was going to say the same thing Nadine said.... during the ceremony, you could manual focus.</p>

I'm not a Nikon shooter,but I suppose they higher price lens would be comparable to the canon 17-55, , wanted a lower Fstop glass but I

wanted to see how much change I would get my using a constant aperture lens, so I bought the tamron 17-50 and for those who come

here looking for an answer , I bought the tamron and it turned out to be a very good lens I know it isn't as a good of glass as the higher

price but It has certainly made some incredible photos,I bought mine at amazon but I bought through a third party seller in Nov 2013 and

the company is japan online ,you can get the lens form Japan at 287.00 dollars and 16.50 expedited shipping which comes priority

international express and The lens cam in less than a week so I paid 304 bucks versus 500 plus tax ,I shoot weddings and use a lot of

flash etc,but I also shoot weddings and stay around a grand , so as they say they get what they pay for, and nobody ever complains ,the

photos turn out wonderfully.