andrew_kass Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 <p>I just sold my Nikon 18-200, loved the range, just was not happy with the sharpness of the pics. I shoot mostly landscape, people and street photography. I don't own an external flash and don't like to use the on camera flash. I wanted to know if the sharpness and/or dof advantages of the tamron was worth giving up the added range of the nikon? Would love to hear from people that have owned/used these lens. Thanks.</p><p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hal_b Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 <p>These lenses are both very sharp. You need to decide if you would rather f/2.8 in the 17-50 range at the expense of your 55-85 range for what you do. Apart from that, I doubt you'll find any reason to differentiate these lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 <p>Because it can open up to f2.8, the Tamron 17-50mm obviously will allow you to have significantly narrow DoF when you want that (such as portraits etc.) The lens will also be more flexible in low light conditions. OTOH, the 16-85mm has VR and a wide range. Myself, I'd go for the 17-50mm f2.8, but then I like to photo in low light a lot. Once you've used a good f2.8 zoom it's a hard habit to kick. Pair the 17-50mm with a Nikon 70-300mm VR eventually and you have a killer duo. They both take 67mm polarizers, as I recall.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_chang2 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 <p>As Kent said, once you use a 2.8 zoom, it is hard to go back to a slow lens. The shallow DOF at 2.8 really makes your subject pop and give you a 3D look to the picture. The new Tamron has VC, which = VR. It seems to have good user reviews. That will be the lens that I will get.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 <p>Only you can really decide if the 17-50 is long enough for what you want to do - and whether the rather poor maximum aperture at the longer end of the 16-85 poses a problem when photographing people. When you analyze your images, what focal length (range) did you use most? An alternative might be to get a 10/12-24 and a 24-xx lens - IF the break at 24mm works for you (it didn't for me). I got the 17-55/2.8 but have to admit that I am sometimes missing the range from 55-85 that I had on my previous lens (24-85). Is the 18-105 an alternative? Especially with street photography, having to work with two lenses can mean missing shots because the wrong is on the camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munim Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I couldn't decide so I bought both the older 17-50 and 16-85. The Tamron wins with its shallow DoF and motion stopping capability in low light. With its f2.8, I don't need my 50mm f1.8 much any more. One thing you'll miss on the Tamrons is a ring/sonic motor. The newer 17-50 still uses the micromotor, so you need to flick a switch to manual focus. The 17-50 VC uses a 72mm filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 <p>16-85 is great for landscape but i would not use a f/5.6 lens for street shooting. if you're shooting available light it doesnt make much sense to get the 16-85 either. so 17-50 seems an obvious choice. i have the earier version and love it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_smith9 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 <p>I tried the Tamron 17-50 VC out for a few days and returned it. It was as sharp as my Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 but it just felt really cheap with the VC mechanism added. I have since purchased the non-BIM of the Tamron 17-50 and I like that much better. I don't see much use of VC at this focal length</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramon_v__california_ Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 <p>i would choose the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for your kind of shooting mentioned. i will even go without the VC. i don't see the need for VC in that range. but that's just me. others love VR and see the benefit even in sort zooms. good luck in your decision.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_knight Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 <p>I replaced my Nikon 18-70 with the Tamron 17-50/2.8. I still have the Nikon lens but never use it. I was at Disney World last April and was amazed at the indoor shots I took with the 17-50/2.8. Walked out doors and the same thing. It beats any other walk around zoom out there, plus because of its fast glass and picture quality it is also considered a professional zoom lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl_becker2 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 <p>IMHO the Tamron would work for all your needs with a limited range but the Nikkor would be better suited for landscape. If you went Tamron you may want a wider zoom or a longer zoom, like a 50-150mm f2.8. I like the ability to isolate with narrow DoF and consider f2.8 a bit slow in this range. For landscape I usually stop down past f8.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_p Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 <p>Here is one that maybe someone can help me with. This can relate to the discussion.</p> <p>Lets say I use both lenses at 50 mm. I have a 5 and 2 year old, a floor full of toys. and they discovered mountain dew.<br /> <br /> How can I get ideal subject sharpness (people shots) when using wide apertures? With posed shots, getting the eyes in focus is fairly easy. For spontaneous movement with children especially, wide apertures are impossible.<br /> <br /> With fast glass and narrow depth of field, the camera's autofocus always gets something sharp, but seldom what I actually want. I have tried setting a still object, say ten feet away and practiced using different lenses shooting at F1.8-2.8 and I sometimes miss focus even with my best efforts. AF or using the assist light only gets me close.<br /> <br /> What I usually do is shoot at f4-5.6, pop a bit of fill if possible, my subject is in focus and I get some keepers. I use depth of field to compensate for the camera's and my own lack of accuracy.<br /> <br /> A fast lens always allows more opportunity, I am not knocking a 2.8 at all, but I've found that in my experience, it is sometimes a liability.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munim Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 For landscapes, the 16-85 is better IMHO. The highest resolution of any lens is usually the third f-stop. So for the 16-85 at its widest it would be f/8 vs f/5.6 for the 17-50. �F/8 at 16mm would translate into slightly deeper DoF compared to f/5.6 at 17mm. At f/11 or f/16 sure you'll get even better DoF but you would start to see the effects of diffraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kari v Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p>A fast lens always allows more opportunity, I am not knocking a 2.8 at all, but I've found that in my experience, it is sometimes a liability.</p> </blockquote> <p>It's a matter of style and practise. I've shot kids quite often with 35mm + f1.4-2 and 6x6 + f2.8-4 so aps-c and f2.8 is not really any problem.</p> <p>Do you choose your focus point? Center only? What camera body do you have?<br /> Other thing is what your expectations are. Is it really distracting if one of the kids is not totally sharp? Is it still distracting when you print 4x6 - 8x12 or make a web jpg?</p> <p>Original topic: I'd take Tamron. It's cheaper and f2.8 comes handy. You can always crop if you need to but you can't make f5.6 two stops brighter and DoF shallower.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictureted Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 <p> I use the 16-85 regularly - my "standard" lens when not shooting macro. I find it extremely useful, the VR works and the contrast and resolution surprised me with their excellence. The slightly wider 16 vs 17 is as important as the longer 85 vs 70, but I love wide lenses. When too dark indoors, I switch to the 35/1.8 - small, fast and inexpensive.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 <p><em>For spontaneous movement with children especially, wide apertures are impossible.</em></p> <p>It takes a bit of practice but it's possible to photograph action with wide apertures. Not with 100% consistency, but with sufficient results to make the effort worthwhile.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 <p>I really like the 16-85VR, but for total allround usage, it just "needs" a few primes to cover the low-light / small DoF needs (and for that, I regularly find f/2.8 is not THAT fast either). So as the "only" solution, I find it a bit lacking. That said, as "normal" walkaround lens, to me it's as good as it gets.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bourboncowboy Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 <p>I've never owned the 16-85, but as long as I own a DX camera, I'll own two lenses: the Tamron 17-50, and the Sigma 30 1.4. Nikon simply doesn't offer a quality alternative to either with regard to IQ/speed/bokeh...which I consider absolutely necessary for my type of shooting.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_p Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 <p>Ilkka,</p> <p>I'm sort of the designated family photographer, and only spend time with the young ones on holidays and special occasions. This is one of the few times when I shoot jpegs, burn a CD or DVD without any pp, and give copies to other family members.</p> <p>I don't like sharing my fudged shots, and I do like the 16-85 as my general purpose lens.</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