Nikon 17-55 or (Tamron 17-50 + SB900)

[mi_pi]

Hi Guys,

 

I've never actually posted here before, but love all the guidance and advice. I have a nikon D80 with 18-135mm

kit lens. I really like wedding shots and want to upgrade my kit slowly.

 

My initial idea was to get the Tamron 17-50mm and a SB 800/900 (prices are the same here - South Africa). BUT I

just found a Nikon 17-55mmm f2.8 second hand at the same price I would pay for the Tamron and flash. My dilemma

is that I’ve heard great stuff about the nikon, buts it’s always been out of reach (price). The nikon price seems

really good and I’m worried I won’t be able to get it at that price again.

 

Recently I have read good things about the Tamron and have a few good test shots with it as well. Is the nikon

something I will want to upgrade the Tamron to eventually or will it does as well.

 

I'm considering the battery grip as well, but I’m a bit worried about weight if get the nikon lens.

 

Please help :)

 

And thanks again for all your great advice.

[dave_shilling__sacramento_]

Get the Tamron and the flash. The nikon wont make a dark room bright all by itself. The Tamron also doubles as a Macro Lens (unofficially). It focuses much closer than the Nikon. The Nikon AF's faster, but focus assistance from your flash will help there as well.

 

This is a no-brainer.

[douglasely]

Good day,

 

I have the Nikon 17 - 55 and I have never used the Tameron.

 

I can share this with you..... the Nikon 17 - 55 zomm is a wonderful lens. It is as good and often better than most

Nikon primes. The only Nikon prime I like more is the 85mm f1.4 and it's function is different.

 

The 17 - 55 is fast, easy to handle, tack sharp and has perfect color rendition. And the focal range on a D80 is

perfect, 25 - 80mm.

 

I always purchase the best glass and everything else comes later. You can always pick up a flash. A good price on

Nikon's 17 - 55 is rare and you will have it a lifetime. It is a superb longterm investment.

 

Best of luck in you descission, Doug

[joe_rych]

I agree, The 17-55 is an amazing lens. If you have a chance to get one for a song, do it. There are always good deals on flashes around. I dont think the D80 can take full advantage of the SB-900 might be just as well to save a few bucks and get an SB-800.

[ShunCheung]

The D80 should almost take full advantage of the SB-900. As far as I can tell, the only feature it cannot trigger on the SB-900 is the automatic DX crop mode; that is, the flash will only illuminate the coverage of a small-sensor DX DSLR. However, you can still forece the DX coverage by setting it manually.

(The SB-900 will automatically adjust to DX crop with all DSLRs from the D40 and on; that includes the D60, D90, D300, D700 and D3 [under DX crop capture mode]).

 

In the USA, the SB-900 costs about 50% more than the SB-800 while the differences are mainly more convenience. If one is on a budget, the SB-800 provides much better value for the money.

[chezmojo]

I have the Tamron 17-55/SB-900 combo (on a D300). Whether or not the D80 can take advantage of all the features of the SB-900, I find that the most useful is being able to use the built-in flash as a commander (and I'm pretty sure the D80 can do that). You can just pop the SB-900 off the camera and flip a switch to fire it off-camera. Takes all of three seconds. The Nikon lens won't allow you to shoot in lower light than the Tamron (they're both f/2.8), but any lens plus a flash will. A flash will let you want to stop action, lift shadows, compress dynamic range, etc.

 

The Tamron lens focuses plenty fast (and is really quiet), is plenty sharp, and plenty fast. It also weighs nothing. My only complaint with this lens is that it doesn't have the instant manual override of the AF-S lenses. I like my Nikkors more than my Tamrons and Tokinas, but the 17-50 is my favorite non-Nikon lens.

 

The SB-900 is probably the best purchase I've made other than the D300 itself. It is amazing. I just turn it on, dial in the exposure compensation (on or off the camera) and fire away. It magically figures everything else out.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that the combination of a good lens and an excellent flash will expand your photographic pallet more than an excellent lens alone, IMHO.

[elliot1]

Users of the Tamron will suggest you get the Tamron.

 

Users of Nikon will suggest you get the Nikon.

 

Go figure!

 

Being that you can get the Nikon at such a good price, I strongly recommend your purchase it!

[albertdarmali]

How about this: get the Nikon 17-55mm and SB400 instead?

Especially if you can get the 17-55mm for cheap, I would get the Nikon if I were you. Because the build quality between the two is so different. One feels like a toy, the other feels like a good lens.

 

Maybe if you had to pay full price, the decision would be harder because the Nikon (new) is much more expensive.

 

But then again, if you are perfectly happy with the build quality of 18-135mm, then maybe you won't have issues with Tamron 17-50mm's build quality.

[joe_a2]

Get the Nikon 17-55mm and an SB-600.

[larrybc]

<p>I second Joe A's recommendation. I had a Sigma 18-50/2.8 for a long time but I finally bit the bullet and bought a 17-55/2.8. Why? Primarily because I wanted more accurate AF and better bokeh. The 17-55 gave me both, as well as better contrast.</p>

 

<p>I don't find it any sharper than my Sigma but I like the 17-55's images much more.</p>

 

<p>BTW, I'm not a lens snob. I still find myself using my 24/2.8 when I want a lighter load, even though I know it doesn't perform as well as my 17-55. And I'm perfectly happy with my Tokina 12-24/4 even though it has some CA issues which I fix in RAW PP.</p>

 

<p>OH yeah, the 17-55 is almost remarkably fast to focus. </p>

 

<p>So if you're going to compare the Tamron against the Nikkor, don't forget to consider the other factors as well as cost, weight and sharpness.</p>

 

<p>Also, I think an SB600 would be a good starting point for shooting weddings, although the SB800's option to use external power or a 5th battery is significant if you foresee yourself shooting a LOT of flash during a wedding.</p>

 

<p>I love off-camera flash photography and have a couple of SB800's, but I could see myself getting by with the SB600 for one or two weddings, and then using some of the income to trade up to an SB800 or add an SB800.</p>

 

<p>The SB900 is a nice flash, and it's about time they improved the control layout, but from a results perspective, I can't justify the higher cost.</p>

 

<p>So my vote is for a 17-55/2.8 and SB600.</p>

 

<p>FWIW, a wedding photog on another forum bought the Tamron 17-55/2.8 for one of his backup bodies and found it to be a good performing lens. But he still recommends buying the 17-55, first. But if your budget is tight and you can't swing a 17-55 and SB600, then go for the Tamron and an SB800. I honestly don't think the SB900 is worth it for a budget-conscious photographer. The price diff btwn the 800 and 900 would be better put to other uses, like an umbrella stand or a flash bracket and remote cable.</p>

 

<p>PS: I bought my 17-55 used, too. It was only 3 mos. old and I love it. The weight and size, however, are a bit of a drag.</p>

 

 

 

<p>larsbc</p>

[huy_nguyen_duc]

I used to have both the 17-50 tamron and the 17-55 nikon so I can share some of my observations:

- The Tamron is on par with the Nikon in terms of sharpness, and this is the only place where the Tamron can

compete with the Nikon.

 

- Bokeh from the Tamron is harsh, while nikon bokeh is very nice for apertures within f/2.8-4.

 

- the real focal length range of the tamron is 17-45, not 17-50 as advertised. At least when I compare the Tamron

with the Nikon, 50 on the Tamron gives the same FOV as 45 on the nikon

 

- The Tamron can have quite bad CA wide open, mostly in highly contrasty scenes, while CA on the nikon is much

better controlled (still visible sometime)

 

- Build quality, Nikon wins hands down

 

- AF speed accuracy, the Tamron is quite quick but sometime it misses (front or back focus), the nikon is even

quicker and never misses focus.

 

- Both lens have field curvature so these lenses are not to be used to shoot brick wall.

 

Of course I only speak about performance. Weather the Nikon superiority can justify the price difference, it's a

personal matter.

 

Huy

[larrybc]

Huy, do you happen to recall if the Tamron's field of view at 50mm was shorter than Nikon's at a variety of focus distances? Or did you just do a comparison at a single distance?

 

Just curious.

 

larsbc

[huy_nguyen_duc]

I have to admit I only compared the FOV at infinity.

[larrybc]

Thx for the answer. I would expect the focal length to be longest at infinity, so your results were probably accurate with respect to the mislabeled focal length.

 

larsbc

[raffal]

Its all about the money!!! Of course everybody would love to have brand new, red ferrari Testarossa...but if the money is an issue , is Tamron that bad when you compare it to Nikon ???....

Is everybody here shooting for money or pleasure??? ...:) $ 449.00 or $1,196.00 --- Enjoy the lens and money or enjoy the lens !!! Ciao, raf

[mi_pi]

Thanks everyone.

 

I decided to get the nikon 17-55mm. It is in great shape, hardly used, and i picked it up for a really good price. I haven't had much time to play with it yet, but it really feels solid.

 

I'm happy.

 

Thanks again for all the advice.

[dave_shilling__sacramento_]

You wont regret your purchase.