How does everyone feel about Tamron lenses compared to thier Nikkor counterparts?

[joe_rych]

In building my digital kit I am looking at some lenses I was first considering the 17-55 Nikkor but then saw the 17-50

Tamron. How well is the tamron by comparison. I read a few reviews online but I thought I would have a more detailed

response here. Does it focus pretty fast, do the images look good. I know you get what you pay for, but is it possible

that Tamron lenses offer pretty good quality, build quality and features for the price?

 

Additionally are thier any other tamron lenses that you might suggest in lieu of Nikkor?

 

I was considering the 18-200 for walkaround but then saw the Tamron 18-250. I also see that tamron has thier own

70-200 2.8

[Peter_in_PA]

The tamron 28-105 I had for my Pentax was really shaky. I didn't like it. When I was evaluating a wide zoom for my D50 I

looked at their 11-18 and it was built like crap imho. I think the 18-250 (which looks to be built similarly) is probably a LOT

less useful than the 18-200 (which is great and I love it). I think a better walk-around lens now is the 16-85, which wasn't

available when I bought my 18-200.

 

THe 17-50, from what I've read, is another story. I've heard great things about that particular lens all over the place. Check

out Thom Hogan's review at http://www.bythom.com/1750lens.htm

[todd peach seattle, washi]

You might search "tamron 17-50" here at photo.net. Lots of threads, particularly over in the Canon side (if you're not familiar with Canon, their "L" series is the top line goods).

 

This is a thread that jumps out of said search:

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00KIVg

[hans_janssen]

The 28-70 and 17-50 both 2.8 are optical very good, but they can not compared with the construction of Nikkors.

[john schroeder]

I have the Tamron SP 17-50mm f2.8 for my Nikon. Optically the lens is amazing. It's only short coming is with it's built in AF motor. The lens will nearly focus on the subject then it fine focuses with two little steps. The type of photography I do this isn't a problem at all. It could be if you shoot sports or other fast moving subjects. A co-worker has the older version which uses the in-body af motor. Her lens doesn't have this quirk. Build quality of this lens is fine. The Nikkor is built better, but unless you are shooting under extremely harsh conditions it will never be a factor.

[graham_marsden]

When I bought my D80 (with the 18-70mm Nikkor) nearly 2 years ago I was offered the Tamron 70-300mm for a low price so I bought it. Throughout t the time I've had it it has annoyed me - it sometimes doesn't seat firmly in the mount and won't auto-focus, the auto-focus itself isn't precise and in anything other than perfect light it 'hunts' backwards and forward. The so-called macro setting is all but impossible to use.

 

It's easily the worst lens in my lens collection and I can't wait to buy the Nikkor 70-300 VR which according to a friend is brilliant.

[john schroeder]

I've had the Tamron 70-300 macro for years and it has always performed nicely. It's no 'pro' lens but it's better than what any other third party is offering. I find the macro ability good but with a few limitations. AT 200mm the lens is tack sharp and only softens a bit at 300mm, which is perfectly normal for this type of lens. Graham, I suspect that you have a bad lens and should send it in for warranty service.

[leif_goodwin8]

My one experience of a Tamron lens is the 90mm macro, and though sharp, it has a different quality of image to a Nikon micro lens. The colour is not the same, and contrast is a bit flatter, more pastel like. Such differences rarely get mentioned in lens tests which tend to be based on Imatest. My bias is to buy Nikon, but if funds are lacking ...

[joseph_martines]

I use a Tamron 18 - 250 and 28 - 300 also a 90 mm Macro. These are used on a Canon body and I am very satisfied with

the results.

 

I believe they are a lot of bang for the buck especially if you don't have a lot of bucks.

 

Canon L lenses have to be used to be appreciated but, the average photographer cannot afford many of them.

[bill_keane2]

I own the 17-50/2.8. It's great. The images resulting are limited only by the photographer, not the glass. Is the Nikon version better? With the difference in price, it had better be. The Tamron, however, reaches the limit of what many DSLR sensors can fully handle -- so the superiority of the Nikon probably lies more in the build quality.

[eric_arnold]

have to agree with bill.

the IQ is pretty great, for the price you wont be disappointed. the other thing is that lugging around a 17-55 qualifies as an aerobic workout, and the lighter weight of the tamron is something that you really start to appreciate 3-4 hours into an all-day destival.

[sjmurray]

I had a Tamron 28-300 for a while. It was a solidly built lens and did very sharp close ups. I was never fond of the harsh bokeh, however. Plus, beyond about 100 mm it was no match for my Nikkor lenses in sharpness and image quality. I sold it at a loss. Lesson learned.

[eric_arnold]

Joe, in general, Tamron SP, Sigma EX, and Tokina AT-X are better than bottom-bucket 3rd party glass in terms of IQ. and Steve, are you comparing the 28-300 Tamron to pro nikkors or something like the 18-200? superzooms as a whole tend to be kinda soft unless stopped down.<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

i have a tokina 24-200 that's built like a tank but not very naturally contrasty. still, stopped down to f/9 and in situations which emphasize it's strengths, it's possible to coax sharp, contrasty pics out of it<div></div>

[albertdarmali]

If you are allergic to crappy-feeling lenses, don't get the Tamron.

But image quality is good though.

[15sunrises]

I don't get all the hating on the Tamron build quality. Unless you're going to be using this to hammer in nails, it will likely hold up fine. There's posts on this forum of people busting even the most expensive lenses, maybe they can take a bit more rugged handling, but in all seriouslness, in most cases it isn't going to matter.

 

There's a lot of advantages to the Tamron lenses as well, they are cheaper for essentially equivalent IQ, they are lighter and the focusing motor scares away bears. The biggest problem I see with them, is since they are 3rd party, you are never guaranteed their compatibility with future camera releases.

[Member69643]

I have the Tamron 28-300 for Sony and like the images it produces. That said, I'd never go anywhere w/o a prime 50mm lens just in case. Sometimes you need to blur the background and these superzooms can't do it. The plastic lens mount is also a bummer, but hey, with a six year warranty, who cares? If it breaks, back to Tamron it goes for repair.

[isaac_reaves]

I have two for my Canon EOS Elan 7 35mm body. Compared to my Canon IS USM lenses (not L, but still good) I can't really tell any difference in image quality. If it entices you to shoot more and fills a need, why not?

[mdc002]

I have a Tamron 18-250 DII on a Canon XSI and am extremely pleased with the lens. Good build quality and excellent pictures. However, not all Tamrons, especially the older ones are of equal quality. Most of the Tamron DII series lenses have received good reviews. If you can try a 17-50 at a camera store on your camera body you will be better able to judge for yourself.

[don olson]

I don't hate Tamron lenses, I just like having to hi-grade and do their QC for them. I do have a Tokina ATX165 that is very good though.

[bill_keane2]

"If you are allergic to crappy-feeling lenses, don't get the Tamron."

 

And don't get the Nikon kit lenses, which don't have half the solid feel of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

 

Not all Nikon lenses are built to the same standard. Nor should they be. For most of us, who are not inflicting rough handling on our lenses, build wise, Tamron, Tokina and Sigma make some fine products -- capable of positively stunning images.

[albertdarmali]

I just don't want to take this thread off rail, so let me just quickly explain what I feel about build quality.

The whole concept in regards to built quality for me is not because "I'll take Nikon so that I can abuse it more,

or so that when I drop it on the stairs, the lens won't break, or so that I can take it for a swim, etc etc" but

more in relation to what feeling it gives me when I am shooting.

 

Photography is my hobby; although I don't use my lenses as weapon, but I do want to feel good when I am doing

what I like. So it just happens that for me personally, something too plasticky just decreases the joy of taking

pictures.

 

And to quote myself: "don't get Tamron if you don't like crappy-feeling lens" was meant only for that Tamron

17-50mm in particular. (if you notice, later on I also mentioned that the picture quality was good, only the

build quality that I can't stand)

 

Just so that you know, I own and love Tamron 90mm f/2.8 DiMacro. I actually chose this over Nikon's 105mm

although the Nikon has better build. I chose it because, first - the bokeh is superior to Nikon (to my eyes),

second - the build quality is also pretty decent and better than the 17-50mm Tamron.

I also own a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, so don't think of me as a Nikon-snob.

 

But I do agree the Nikon kit lens (18-55mm) is worse than Tamron 17-50mm. What I was trying to say is, if build

quality is as important for you as it is for me, then you won't like that particular Tamron 17-50mm.

Also, the reason why I mentioned about build quality was because if you notice, the poster of this thread

actually asked about the build quality for that particular Tamron.

[richard___7]

I've only used Tamrons with film cameras and they've performed admirably. They are definitely at their best at f/5.6 and higher.

However, Nikkor lenses remain my first choice for optical quality and build.

[christopher_permar]

I shot with the Tamron 17-50 for a week on my D300 and was not too happy with the results. I used it indoor shooting a concert @1600 as

the venue was not "flash friendly". Needless to say the lens was searching quite a bit and as a result I did return the lens. The beauty of

buying from Ritz is they allow you 14 days to play with a lens. I've since bought the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 from Calumet and will admit it to

being on my camera 90% of the time. I realize I more than doubled my purchase price but also know you get what you pay for these

days....

[eric_arnold]

albert, the key phrase was " is it possible that Tamron lenses offer pretty good quality, build quality and features for the price?"

 

the answer is yes.

 

for $450 you can't get a better-built 2.8 zoom. and while obviously the nikkor 17-55 and tokina 16-50 have better build than the tamron, for lightweight plastic/polycarbonite, it's sturdier than it looks. the thick furled rubber zoom ring acts as a shock bumper and while i havent dropped mine, it has survived some knocks and dings. its really great for street/doc and PJ work, also travel, hiking or anything where you need light weight. for wedding pros, i'd go with the far more ostentatious nikkor, or the tokina if you're on a budget and build quality is a big concern.

 

also, i havent noticed any slowness in focus speed (other than the fact that in some dim situations, 2.8 is not fast enough -- that's what the 30/1.4 is for), but i have version I without the micromotor, which may be faster than the micromotor version.