Nikon 17-55 2.8 vs Tamron 17-50 2.8 (Multiple Versions)

[steven_huels]

<p>I am looking to buy a lense in the 17mm to 50mm (or 55mm) range for portrait work and general around town use. This will be for use with a D300. The weight of lenses does not really factor into my decision.</p>

<p>I have seen multiple comparisons to the Nikon 17-55 2.8 and 2 of the 3 versions of the Tamron 17-50 2.8.</p>

<p>1. Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [iF] - which is the internal motor driven version<br>

2. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [iF] - which does not have an internal motor<br>

3. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Lens - which has an internal motor and the vibration compensation</p>

<p>It seems option 2 above is the prefered lens and compares quite favorably for all intents and purposes to the Nikon for 1/3 the cost. However, that version has been discontinued - although a couple online retailers still seem to have some in stock. Option 1 seems to also get favorable reviews, but there seems to be some concern with variability based on the actual lens you get.</p>

<p>My question is with regard to option 3 above - has anyone had any experience with the vibration compensation version and how it compares and how consistent the manufacturing specs are (ie, do I need to be more concerned about getting a bad lens than option 2)?</p>

<p>Thank you</p>

[steven_huels]

<p>Sorry - I also should have asked whether or not the vibration compensation is very good on the Tamron. Is it worth $200 more than option 1? And is option 2 still the best of all 3 to purchase?</p>

<p>Thank you</p>

[mark_s8]

<p>Steven, I think you will find that fast, fixed-aperture f/2.8 lenses over the very short focal lengths you describe, have little if any need for VR.</p>

[andreas_manessinger]

<p>I own #3 and don't know the other two.</p>

 

<p>As to VC, over in <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VeMa">this current thread</a> and on my blog, I explain that it works fantastically and why it is such an important thing for me. It's at least as good as Nikon's VR. Other people consider stabilization at these focal lengths worthless or even detrimental to image quality (which I'd say is FUD). </p>

 

<p>In fact, only you can tell if you need it and if it is worth $200 to you. If you only make landscapes from the tripod, I suppose it won't. On the other hand, if so, you probably wouldn't ask, would you? And then: if you are a current tripod user, I believe stabilization has the potential to change that :)</p>

 

<p>There is only one thing to remember: stabilization compensates for you shaking, it does not compensate for moving subjects. You can take an architectural image at 1/15s or even less, but people in the image may be blurred as they move. So may be leaves and branches of a tree in strong wind. Stabilization is not for people and not for wind, but even if, motion blur can be used artistically as well.</p>

 

<p>Finally: if you don't need it all the time, just turn it off. The nice thing is to have the option when you need it.</p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>Try to buy option 2, there is a link on the forum to a review of the VC version of the lens and there they conclude that the non-VC is better. I'm satisfied with my copy on a D2h.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>After reading the other post about this lens, I'm pretty much convinced that I'm going to buy the VC version for my Dx sensor bodies.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i've got option 2 and couldnt be happier with it. i typically use it for low-light applications and walkarounds, and dont really miss VR/VC. it would be nice to have, i guess, but i've heard the screw-drive version focuses faster than either of the micromotor versions.</p>

<p>as far as QC issues, i'll put it this way: there's more that can go wrong with the micromotor and Vc versions in terms of alignment. whether you need to be concerned is largely up to you. most people who get "good" copies of any lens dont say anything about it, and many people who recieve a lemon vent frequently on as many internet sites as they can.</p>

<p>with any lens from any manufacturer, sample variation is possible. that's why its best to buy from a reputable retailer with a good return/exchange policy.</p>

 

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>1 and 2 will balance well on a D300 so i don't think you will benefit from VC. but as some people say, it is nice to have if you need it. but to me i'd rather save the $200 for the 50mm f/1.8 or add another hundred for the 35mm f/1.8</p>

<p>i have the non-motorized version and use it for my light travel with the cheap and excellent nikon 55-200mm VR in my bag and the 35mm f/1.8 in my pocket.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<p>This lens caught my attention some time back, so I researched it extensively; mostly looking at test chart images.<br>

From a price break POV, it seems pretty good..almost throwaway price if it lasts for 3 or 4 years.</p>

<p>I was not thrilled to see some recurring comments concerning this lens.</p>

<p>1) Copy to copy variences seemed pretty wild.<br>

2) At 2.8 it is very soft, esp at the corners.</p>

<p>It's a tough call. I think in the long haul, Nikon's 17-55 will hold it's value far better and no doubt stay together far better.</p>

<p>I am a lover of Nikon's..be it their lenses or bodies, but I have to say, IMO the price of the 17-55 is prohibitive.</p>

[cool_dude]

<p>I just had my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 delivered a few hours ago and I can tell you right now that I wish it had VR. Did I also mention that this thing is heavy? I picked it up once at a store before buying and it seemed alright. After just 10 mins of shooting with it now, I'm thinking of selling my dumbells! :-) YMMV</p>

[liky_yan]

<p>however, i have hold #2 17-50 for 3 years, i have something to tell you 1. build quality, now rubber round for zoom is separate from the lens.........omg..... 2. sharp graphic on 17-35 @2.8, but 35-50 is poor at f2.8 to f4, f5.6 can be accept 3. color is a little warm, and the tint is far worse than 17 55,not good enough for portrait. 4. very cheap price at second hand, now i can only sell it on RMB 1600......... 5. easy to get dust in......my one is dusty inside... so 1755 is your best choice.</p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>I have a screw drive version, but if I was buying today, I'd get the newest model. I can use VC at 50mm.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hmm, my 17-50 has seen 3+ years of moderate-to-heavy use. the rubber ring around the lens is in the beginning stages of starting to come loose, but not quite critical yet. eventually, i'll probably get the 17-55, but mainly for the build quality--i'll actually be losing some sharpness at 2.8, which is what i mainly shoot this lens at. in any event, i'd say its earned its keep.</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>Rubber rings on my Nikons fall off just as nicely, including the 17-55. I think you can re-glue them, though. I wish my 17-55 had VR.</p>

[steven_huels]

<p>Thank you everyone for the responses - there seems to be fair representation of positive feedback for each of the lenses. I will plan to shoot a bit with each and see which one meets my needs.</p>