What to buy? 17-50mm/2.8 VC Tamron

[rachel_ostrow]

<p>I cannot dish out the money to get the 17-55/2.8DX that I have been lusting over for who knows how long. I am not a "professional", so I guess I don't need the best rated equipment out there and the 17-55/2.8DX may be too much lens for by D80. I am taking pictures for two weddings (friends of course) this summer and am in need of a good all-purpose walk-around lens. <br />So, I am opting for the 17-50mm/2.8 VC Tamron.<br />Any thoughts? Is this a good move? Everywhere I read claim that it is a good compare at a much better price. But, I just want to make sure that I will still be getting a great lens for the money.<br />Any other suggestions would be helpful as well.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>That's a good lens, you won't be going wrong.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Do you need the 2.8 ? otherwise you could also go for smthing like the Nikkor 16-85 VR ...</p>

[jacob_kerns]

<p>I'm going through the same delima. I've decided to get the Tamron. I've call around to different camera shops here and the all recommend it as long as you get the VC version cause the non VC is supposed to be cheap feeling. The camera shop here that orders it regular said I can try it for 30days and if I don't like he would give me a full refund. I hope to get it soon.</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>Tamron is a good lens. I did notice that in low light it had harder time focusing but overall preformed great.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>keep using the kit lens until you save up enough for the nikkor. you know what you really want...</p>

[mark_loader]

<p>The Tamron is great, save your pennies for now! HOWEVER....don't overlook the Tamron 28-75 F2.8. Might the extra reach be more beneficial? Love from Downunder...</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Looks to me that you have done your homework. It should be a great event lens, a great value and a great fit with your D80. Enjoy. I use the Tamron 28-75mm on my D700 and find the range enough for me when only one lens will be taken for general shooting. I have managed to collect a kit that goes from 20mm to 500mm for a range of subjects.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Rachel, you are not the first on this path and everyone I know that did it (including myself) is happy with this decision. Tamron is an underrated lens, very capable, not the same build quality but very close in IQ with the more expensive Nikon equivalent.</p>

[ray_dockrey]

<p>I just bought the Tamron 17-50 VC lens for use on my D300 about three weeks ago. Great, great lens. They also come with a $70 rebate here in the states right now so more incentive to get it. I also have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 which I have been using for about a while now and it is a super lens also. I was so pleased with it that is why I went ahead and bought the 17-50 VC.</p>

[ronald_smith6]

<p>A 24/28-70mm type of lens is fine on a full-fame DSLR but not-so-great on a DX body. I use the 16-85mm VR almost all the time even at weddings, but my Tamron 17-50mm (non-VC) is used when the lighting gets minimal.</p>

[976photo]

<p>Any lens is better than no lens. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. Get something you can afford so you can actually<strong> use </strong>it. Don't sweat over which lens is "rated better" by supposed scientific tests. If you don't have it, you can't use it, and that's not worth anything is it?</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>The Tamron has excellent IQ. The Nikon may be better built, but the Tamron is built more than well enough the use most people will give it. It also has a 6 year warranty.</p>

[bnelson]

<p>I purchased the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC about 3 months ago and I think it is a wonderful lens. Way less expensive than the Nikon 17-55 and still has great IQ. It also has the VC which is great in low light. It is also lighter but of good quality. Lighter is good when the arms get older.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>One thing to consider is that it is not hard to find the Nikon 17-55 in good-excellent conditions for around $8-900 in the used market, which is not that much more than the VC version of the Tamron lens. I do not have the steadiest hands in the world and when I need to react quickly to events as they unfold, it is not always easy to keep my hand steady. However with the Nikon lens, which is heavy, but well balanced on a D90, its haft really helps to stabilize itself, and I have not seen many blurry pictures due to camera shake. The Nikon is remarkably fast, quiet, and accurate to AF in dim lights, which is typical for most indoors events. It is not the built on the Nikon that you should care but its AF performance. For events, such as wedding, the Nikon should deserve your careful consideration. If this were for more casual photography where if you miss a few shots, due to AF performance, is not a big deal, then the Tamron is more than enough.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>rachel, i've had the original version of the 17-50 for about 3 1/2 years now. i have shot many events with it and subjected it to fairly tough use at times. i wouldnt hesitate to recommend it, it seems perfect for your purposes. the VC version adds stabilization which the 17-55 doesnt have, so that's a plus. i dont think you will regret this, especially as the tamron will balance much better on a d80.</p>

[ray_dockrey]

<p>CC Chang, my Tamron 17-50 VC cost me $675 after tax. Then deduct the $70 rebate which makes it around $600 and it comes out quite a bit less than a used Nikon 17-50. Plus you are getting a brand new lens with 6 year warranty and VC on top of that. It becomes quite a value.</p>

[adriana_husna]

<p>I bought 17 50 VC last year. Its one of the best lens i ve used. At F2.8 its already sharp enough for me.Most of the time i used it at 2.8.<br>

This lens ,with 80-200 2.8D is my most used lens.</p>

 

[matthew_banks1]

<p>Another + for this lens. I was suprised by the build quality and sharpness, and the VC works fantastic (not available on the more expensive Nikon or Canon equivalents). Compared to my 5omm 1.4G, the sharpness is good but bokeh is a bit crunchy and I find some distortion towards the edges, which is minor but enough to be annoying for me. Overall a great match for my D300.</p>

[dusty_wall]

<p>I was in the exact same predicament: I wanted a fast standard zoom for personal, as well as gigs, & couldn't afford the Nikkor 17-55 2.8 DX, so I bought the Tamron 17-50 2.8 Di-II VC. I would not go back, and I recommend the lens to anyone in this position, but...<br /> <br /> Although over much of the zoom range it is close (if not equal) to the quality of the Nikkor, keep in mind that there are two notable exceptions. It is very soft at the 50mm end at f/2.8, so if you want to shoot at the 50mm end make sure you have enough light to stop down to f/5.6 (or swap in a 50mm 1.8 like I do). Also, it has very pronounced barrel distortion at 17mm, so it's not very good at wide angle shots with long straight lines near the edges of compositions (interiors, city streets, landscapes with horizon at rule-of-thirds, etc.).<br /> <br /> I have used it to capture great images in low light, and for that the aperture & VC of this lens is great. Just be aware of these limitations so you're not surprised when you get the images full-screen on your computer.</p>

[rsands]

<p>I've had this lens for about a month (non-VC version, had a budget for body+lens+big zoom+bag+memory+++++ that was already way blown) and couldn't be happier. Great low-light performance, great close-up performance, crystal clear at every range I have tried, no issues with AF for me. Can't comment on the VC version, but the non-VC version has been outstanding. Having the 2.8 aperture available through the range for depth of field control has been a real, real + over the kit lenses.</p>

[louis_stoeger]

<p>I bought the non-VC version of this lense to go with my D90 and love it, but I was having difficulty learning to hold it steady (brand new to photography) so I called up B&H and asked to exchange it for the VC lens you're asking about. When I got the lens I popped it on my camera and snapped a couple of test shots and was shocked they looked worse than what I was getting with the non-VC version. I ended up taking a couple hundred shots of a camera test pattern from my tripod (with VC turned off of course - I also did some handheld test shots with VC turned on) with both lenses to compare them. Bottom line is both lenses produce nice images, but the non-VC version is sharper across pretty much all apertures, unless you go slower than 1/80th of a sec (in my shaky hands anyway) on the shutter. I ended up changing my mind, and kept the non-VC and sent the VC lens back instead. Other plusses for the non-VC version: smaller/lighter, the VC made an irritating/distracting (to me at least) noise when it activated, and the VC lens takes larger filters (more $$) and lastly the focus ring is smoother to operate in the non-VC version.</p><div></div>