ryan_smith9 Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 <p>I am looking to purchase this lens range and I plan on using it for portraits and shots of kids. I am currently using a D90. I know I need speed for the kids, but I was wondering if I could save a few hundred dollars and have the Tamron work for me for what I want to do. Has anyone used the Tamron 17-50 withOUT the built in motor (I hear that one is much faster on a D90 than the newer version with) and the Nikon 17-55 and know if the Tamron will be able to capture the quick movements of kids? I believe the IQ/sharpness is also very close between those two lens, can someone confirm this as well? I currently have the Tamron 28-75 which I enjoy very much, I just need it to be a little wider. I can afford the Nikon, I'm just not convinced that it is necessary for what I want.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_chang2 Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 <p>I too need a lens in this range to photograph my one-yr old with a D90. Despite the good thing I heard about the Tamron, its AF is reported to be slower than that of the Nikon and not as accurate in dim light, which is where I use this lens the most. I was thus leaning toward the Nikon, and bought a used one in very good condition for $900, at which price the Nikon seems a bit more affordable/reasonable. The built quality of this lens is impressive. It is not a light lens but balances well on the D90, and the weight helps to control camera shake. The AF is truely impressive as it is fast, accurate, and near silent indoors at night with available light. With this lens, the D90 seems to be very conservative in the exposure when matrix metering is used. For example if the main object is wearing a white shirt, it tends to underexpose by one-stop, but my other lenses do not do so in such an extreme manner. I don't know if this is normal for this lens. While this helps to protect the highlight, the noise is also more easily seen in the underexposed shadow area. I don't have the Tamron to compare side by side with the Nikon, unfortunately. However if you can find a used Nikon and the weight/cost of the Nikon does not bother you, I would go with the Nikon. </p> <p>I am also interested in the T 28-75 b/c it will pair well with the Tokina 12-24. Does the 28-75 works well enough to capture your kids?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramon_v__california_ Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 <p>if you are not going to print larger than 11 x 17 you will not see the difference between the two lenses you are looking at. i use them both on my primary camera for shoots that i get paid for. you can surely use the long end of both for portraits. well, you can use the 28-75mm if you prefer longer for portraits.</p> <p>the 17-55mm will be a little heavy for running after kids on the D90. i use it for my D200 and when i rent a D700. i prefer the 17-50mm on my D90. balances well in my hands. if you can swing by a photo shop for feel on the combinations that will be great.</p> <p>unless you're considering the 17-55mm as an investment for future venture in professional work, save a lot and get the tamron. you will not be disappointed. and yes, i have the non-motorized version.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_smith9 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 <p>Ramon, how does the autofocus compare on the two? That is my main concern.<br> CC, I also have the 12-24 and 28-75 combination, works very nicely. The autofocus is sufficient with the lens for what I need (portraits and literally chasing kids) and the picture quality is wonderful. It is also very sharp as it is a 'macro' version lens. I have it in the classifieds.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_knight Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 <p>If you need fast glass for professional use get the Nikon, other wise the Tamron makes a great multi use lens. It never leaves my D50 unless I need the zoom. I purchased the Tamron for low light shots at our church and taking pictures of my grandchildren. At Disney World I stopped it down for the outdoor shots and opened it up for the indoor shows where no flash was allowed.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mt4x4 Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 <p>Tamron is releasing a new 17-50 f/2.8 w/ Vibration Control very soon. They have details on thier website. It might be worth a look as it will still be several hundered dollars cheaper than the Nikon (used) and from what I have seen is very sharp.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kris-bochenek Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 <p>I've used Tamron for almost a year and it gave me very good results but it would have a hard time focusing in dark, I than upgrated to Nikon 17-55 it's a great lens built quality, optical quality.<br> I can say that Tamron will be great for casual shooting but if you need a lens for pro work go with Nikon.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 <p>i've had the tamron for about three years and have taken thousands of shots with it. to me, it was hard to justify the cost of the nikkor. the tamron is really a great little lens, very sharp at 2.8. it's particularly great for walkaround and street stuff; for pro weddings or PJ use, the nikkor is probably worth it. if you're just taking kid pics, i'd go with the tamron, which will balance well on a d90. i am sure the nikon has faster AF but i wouldnt call the 17-50 slow.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_worth Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 <p>I have the Tamron with screw drive, and I've never had any problems with focusing. It seems fast and accurate to me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_smith9 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 <p>Done, thanks for the input guys. Going with the Tammy. I now have a large gap from 50-70, may need to look into a 35-70 to fill that in. NAS!!!!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramon_v__california_ Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 <p>ryan, the autofocus on the 17-55mm is significantly faster. but i have used the tamron for my granddaughter's junior varsity basketball games indoors under the basket.</p> <p>you might not need to buy to fill in the gap. use the old reliable legs :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_smith9 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 <p>Ramon, you know I am just looking for an excuse, right? :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_drutz Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 <p>You should consider the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro HSM if you are worried about focus speed. The HSM motor focuses very fast and the IQ is about equal to the Tamron.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramon_v__california_ Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 <p>ryan, i figured that was the case :-)<br> okay, okay. you'll love the 17-55mm. the tamron is too small. have fun with your new nikkor.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_noble5 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 <p>I bought a Nikon 17-55 , and while mechanically the lens is well made, it was an otical dissapointment: soft, and lots of distortion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevans Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 <p>Andre, we've had opposite experiences. Mine is plenty sharp and only distortion at the extremes, like any lens behaves.</p> <blockquote> <p>Done, thanks for the input guys. Going with the Tammy. I now have a large gap from 50-70, may need to look into a 35-70 to fill that in. NAS!!!!</p> </blockquote> <p>That's not really a large gap. You don't need to have every millimeter covered.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_newell2 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 <p>Owned both, used both a lot, sold the Tamron. On brick walls and bookshelves, the Tamron was the equal of the Nikkor. On real life subjects, the Nikkor was noticeably better. It also focused a good bit faster, if that matters.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now