Would you rather have Nikon 20mm f/2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8?

[albertdarmali]

I'm not planning to get one now, but I'm pretty sure that my next lens purchase

will be either one of these.

 

Basically I just need a wide angle lens for my D80 since I've already covered

all other focal lengths that I use.

 

Both Tamron and Nikon are 2.8, but I wonder, which one would be sharper wide

open at their shortest focal length?

 

I like primes, and I don't really care about the extra coverage/zoom (maybe from

35-50mm onwards) the Tamron offers since I have other lenses for that. So

basically the lens will just be used for wide angle shots.

 

The Tamron is wider at 17mm, but I wonder picture quality wise, which one is

better, because from my eyes both are great. But considering what it would be

used for, I guess I'd be shooting it wide open and widest focal length most of

the time. So which one if you had to choose, and why? I can't quite decide,

maybe you guys can give me some inputs that I mightn't have thought of. Thanks

in advance.

[Matt Laur]

My first thought: on a D80, 20mm ain't very wide. Which is more important... wideness or speed?

[albertdarmali]

That's what I'd been thinking too, I might want that extra 3mm. Heck, should I even consider the extreme wide angle? 10-12mm? But I'm afraid it's too "curvy" for normal shots.

[Matt Laur]

Not too curvy! I've been using a Sigma 10-20 a LOT lately (way, way more than I thought I was going to, believe me). At first it seemed sort of exotic, and then I began to really undertstand the power of that ultrawide range. Yes, there is some perspective distortion when you really go wide, but that can be conrolled by choosing your camera position/angle with a little bit of care, and then after the fact through software. There are plenty of tools, that way... I happen to use Nikon's Capture NX. Works great.

 

I've got two lenses that back out to 18mm, but I've found that as useful as that length can be, the difference between 18mm and 10mm is enormous. All sorts of creative and practical opportunities present themselves with that extra working room. You really need to put one on the camera to appreciate that whole new, wide world.

[albertdarmali]

Do you by any chance have any shots from the lens' both extreme angle to show the difference in 10 and 20mm? I wanna see how bad is the distortion.

[michaelschrag]

Both lenses are reviewed here: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html Klaus did not give the 20mm lens a good review but the Tamron is pretty good. Based upon this limited test of one lens each I would get the Tamron. I have not seen ay bad reviews of the Tamron. Here are some user reviews of the Nikkor, which are mixed: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=12

[delros]

i have been using the sigma 10-20 mm lens,for a while now an it realy is a great lens for landscapes,sigma 77mm slim circular polariser and the cokin w960 kit,are both worth their weight,in gold,make a great x-mas pressy.<div></div>

[rob_shooter]

I have both the Sigma 10-20mm and Tamron 17-50mm on D80. Both great lenses - the 10-20 for landscapes, the 17-50 as a great all rounder. Only issue with 10-20 is when using with Polarizer - under about 28mm (18mm on Nikon DSLR) the blue skies are not uniform across the whole image. After about 28mm this recifies.

[jordan_banks1]

Rob to get blue skyes to be uniform acroos the whole image you ideally need to buy a 105 mm polarizer. This will give u the effect that we all require from our polarizers.

[Matt Laur]

Rob: that problem you mention with the polarizer isn't, of course, a Sigma problem. You'd see the same thing with ANY ultra-wide that provides such a wide angle of view. It's a laws of physics problem, having to do with the effectivness of the polarizing filter dimishing after you get a certain number of degrees off axis. Since the angle of view is SO wide, the polarization's positive impact is only going to be felt in part of the image... so, you have to either shoot more than one image and stitch your sky together, or opt for another exposure approach if you're really going for that atmospheric drama. Definitely splitting hairs, though! The things that you CAN do with such lens greatly outweigh any minor frustrations brought on by the nature of the beasts.

[albertdarmali]

I just remember the ultra wide lenses are not f/2.8

 

I need at least f/2.8 due to my shooting style and preference. So I guess it's back to either Nikon 20mm 2.8 or 17-50mm Tamron then. How 'bad' is the Nikon wide open ?

[SCL]

Not swure which version you're referring to as Nikon has had several iterations in recent years. In my experience the Nikon isn't bad wide open, but wide open isn't its sweet spot either. On the performance scale (sharpness, contrast) Photozone rated this lens 77 points (out of 100) wide open, and 92 stopped down, moderate flare and vignetting. I've enjoyed its use in spite of these issues...but I wouldn't wouldn't to try for anything larger than a 20x30 print if using it on a digital camera.I

[John Crowe]

You could also consider the Nikon 18/2.8. A new one is more money but keh.com currently has a "bargain" one for $465 USD. Their "bargain" is essentially brand new!

 

 

What you probably need is a 14/2.8 and used Tamrons can be found, with patience, for around $700 USD.

 

 

What are you using it for? Using superwides at f2.8 is unusual.

[John Crowe]

I do prefer primes but there is also the Nikon 18-35 f3.5-4.5 ED lens available. Seems to be really cheap on the used market but I have no idea about the quality. At 18mm it is f3.5 which is only 1/2 stop difference from the various f2.8 lenses. Did I mention that they're cheap?

 

 

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html rates it not too badly. Quite likely superior to the Tamron 18-50.

[carl_becker2]

Here is a link with some info:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

 

Seems like the Nikkor 17-35 might be a good fast quality choice.

 

I use a Tokina 17 or Nikkor 24 prime.

[jonathan_walker]

The Nikon 20 2.8 AIS is lovely. It's MF but you can focus it easily with the middle finger of your right hand. Super smooth.

[albertdarmali]

The Nikon I was thinking was the AF version of 20mm 2.8 (latest version). I want an AF so that the camera can meter with the lens. It will be used for indoor without flash too, that's why I prefer something at least 2.8

 

The result I saw from Tamron is actually quite promising, but I'm not sure how much sharpening/pp has been applied.

[SCL]

Photozone's test results on the Tamron indicate (100 point scale):<p>

Wide Performance.......Long Performance..........Distortion.......Vignetting.......Flare<p>

Open/Stopped Down..Open/Stopped Down.......Wide/Long.......Wide/Long <p>

...75/90..........................77/89...........................61/83.............67/85............65<p>

 

Overall build quality 59 (pretty low).

[bruce_margolis]

Stephen, are you sure you're talking about Photozone? This is what I read....

 

"The Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [iF] is a very serious performer capable to deliver some of the best MTF50 figures to date in this lens class. Vignetting and distortions are about average for a lens in this class. CAs are very high at 17mm and 24mm. Mechanically the lens isn't top notch but it compares very well here to other third party lenses. AF accuracy could be a little better on the Nikon D200. Thanks to the very moderate price tag the lens is highly attractive and definitely worth a deeper look when shopping for a quality standard zoom lens for your APS-C DSLR and it's also a very serious alternative to the genuine Nikkor standard zooms."

 

No one would confuse this lens with the quality built Nikon version (17-55mm) but then, it is only one-third the cost.

[mark_gillett]

Albert,

I have a D80 and have both the 20/2.8 and recently got the 12-24 zoom (both Nikon). The 20/2.8 was one of my favorite lenses with my film cameras, but it is just not wide enough on a D80. I rarely carry it any longer. I love the 12-24 and would highly recommend it if you want to go wide on a D80.

 

Now for the real reason I'm posting a response. Keep in mind that the slowest shutter speed for handheld shots (no tripod) is generally 1/focal length, so for a 50mm lens, you could generally handhold down to 1/50th sec. This means that for a 12-24 zoom, you can handhold down to 1/12 sec to 1/24 sec. In other words, you can get sharp pictures at relatively slow shutter speeds. When you factor that in, the 12-24 may work for you even though it doesn't go to 2.8.

 

Finally, I rarely shot the 20/2.8 wide open at 2.8 because the short depth of field does not usually fit for my wide subjects. I shoot long lenses at 2.8 all the time (e.g. portraits), but wide angle lenses are unflattering to faces anyway and I usually want everything sharp in a wide angle shot.

 

Just some thoughts. Where are you located by the way?