Tamron 17-50 vs. Nikon 17-55 for Weddings?

Hello all,

 

I wanted to query those of you who may have had experience with this scenario. I bought the Tamron 17-50 for

wedding work, opting not to purchase the Nikon 17-55. I did so primarily to save weight, and the price difference

enabled me to get a backup sb-800. I'm happy with the lens, but lately I've been craving a sharper lens to suit

my tastes. My Question is... given the opinion of many that the Nikon is sharper, is that marginal difference in

sharpness visible on a 16x20? Or do you need to print reeeeally big to see your extra $800 at work? I love sharp

photos as much as the next guy, but not everybody veiws their photos at 300% ;) I was hoping I could lean on your

experience before I rent the Nikon and do test prints

 

Thanks for any and all replies!

I'm willing to bet that an objective viewer would fail to notice any difference in sharpness between the lenses for 95% of the images. I'm also willing to bet that if I had paid the extra money that I'd see a difference :-)

 

Saving the money to buy the extra speedlite was a sound move IMO.

Probably the closest you'll get to an objective test of the two lenses without A-Bing the lenses yourself is Popular Photography's graph test. The Tamron spec'd out a hair better than the Nikkor. I suspect this may be because the Tamron has a little shorter zoom range- in other words, if the Tamron was a 17-55mm like the Nikkor, the Nikkor would have been the same or spec'd a little better:

 

 

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/2257/lens-test-nikon-17-55mm-f28g-dx-af-s-specs-page2.html

 

 

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4640/lens-test-tamron-17-50mm-f28-xr-di-ii-af-specifications-and-sqf-page2.html

 

 

Anyhow, I sell both lenses and own the Nikkor. I love AF-S focusing, which, with the little extra focal length on the portrait lens is worth the extra money to me.

 

 

That said, the Tamron is a swell lens- I lke the smaller size and I like the price. I sold a Tamron to an editorial shooter friend who's been quite happy with it.

FYI, the differences between the two lenses used in the Pop Photo tests could also have been sample variation on the part of either lens.

I use Portrait optimization when I shoot people, and Edge Sharpening in Photoshop to avoid making skin look bad.

 

If I was shooting landscape I'd want the sharpest lens.

 

I'm not sure I want to pick out every zit and defect in the average face...

Ok, I'm a Canon shooter but I did check out that Tamron in Canon mount before opting for the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS. I paid the extra dough mostly for the IS but also because the Canon USM AF was noticeably faster than the Tamron. Not to say the Tammy was bad, just the Canon was faster.

 

I would suspect the Nikon is equally as fast as the Canon, but if I understand this correctly it is not available with IS or should I say VR in Nikon speak. So, I don't know if it would be worth $800 more just for slightly faster AF speed. I should also point out the speed difference is more marked in low light and not so noticable in good light. I think you made the right move.

Bob makes the point that was the difference maker for me. Yes, if I had the money I would get the 17-55 2.8. But even if I had the money I would be hard-pressed to be truly comfortable paying that much more for the 17-55.

 

The 17-50 AFs plenty fast on my D300, and it doesn't miss the mark if I'm using it properly (and improper focusing technique would affect the 17-55, too - aiming it at the middle of a white dress at 2.8 can cause some misfocusing on any lens)

Dave,

I'm trying to decide on a normal f2.8 zoom for event photography. I'm considering the tamrom, nikon & tokina.

After much research & reading reviews, it seems they all have similar sharpness. The sharpness at f2.8 would be

important to me. But no matter how sharp it is, if the color & contrast are not adequate, the picture looks

bland. I've been wondering if the tamron & tokina have the saturation & contrast that the nikon does. I doubt it.

There is such a huge cost difference in these lenses, if the nikon wasn't so expensive (although a nikon f2.8

single focal length lens cost just as much) I'm sure I would buy it but I'm very much considering the tamron now.

It would be helpful to see unaltered photos of the same subject from both lenses. If you test both lenses would

you please post some photos from both. I would appreciate it.

I can't compare mine to the Nikkor, but I have never felt the Tamron lacking at all in saturation or contrast. I would be shocked if there was much, if any, of a difference.

Hey David,<br>I don't own the Tamron 17-50, but I do have the 28-75 2.8, as well as the Nikon 17-55 (which is permanently mounted to one of my D300's!). In a nutshell, I haven't used the Tamron in well over a year, and I think I'm going to put it up for sale soon. I can't make a comparison with the 17-50, but the 17-55 is without doubt superior to the 28-75. For me, it was worth the extra money. I would rent it, test them side by side, and see what you think. If I had to (emphasis on "had to") shoot a wedding with one lens, I could do it easily with it; but thankfully I have an arsenal of glass with me! Let us know the outcome if you do a comparison, and best of luck.

Thanks everyone for the excellent information. It sounds to me like overall IQ of the Nikon is not $800 better than the Tamron. I agree that if money was no object, I'd own the Nikon for the superior AF, better shots into the sun, and at the very least, a more effective self defense tool. I'll hold off for awhile. I know a local photog who uses one, so if I'm in a situation that permits real life test shots, I will do those and post them in new thread for all to study. If professionals who look for differences are the only ones who can see the difference in print, I'm a happy camper. the D200/300 bodies are heavy enough... adding the nikon and a speedlight must be killer! I dont know how you old guys do it... are you juicing like Jack LaLane or something? joking of course, but seriously, I'm going to add some push-ups into my wedding training program.