Choosing between Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 on D300.

[garytanbw]

Tamron 17 - 50mm..... To me its pretty sharp, totally satisfied.....

 

[Klnyc]

Both are sharp..I used own Tammy 17-50(1st gen)...I sold for USD 250.00.
The Nikon 17-55 is super sharp and its heavy and built like a tank and of the prices is $$$$$
I was about to get the 17-55, but I know I would want alittle throw..so, I bought the 24-70G f2.8 I love it and fast and sharp.

 

[lsisaxon]

Tamron 17 - 50mm..... To me its pretty sharp, totally satisfied.....

Hmm.. The bokeh leaves more to be desired. But I guess that's acceptable for a lens a few times less expensive than the Nikkor.

 

[bigbird17]

here a sample of 17-50mm tamron wide open at f2.8 colours are as they are no PP only resize!

i must say its a sharp and need glass.

 

[lsisaxon]

here a sample of 17-50mm tamron wide open at f2.8 colours are as they are no PP only resize!

i must say its a sharp and need glass.

It's something about the background bokeh.. Just seems a little.. I don't know how to put it.. wierd? harsh? :dunno: My 18-200VR has a similar kind of bokeh also.. It's just not pleasant. The background bokeh of the Nikkor 17-55 seems more pleasant but the price hurts.

 

[bigbird17]

It's something about the background bokeh.. Just seems a little.. I don't know how to put it.. wierd? harsh? :dunno: My 18-200VR has a similar kind of bokeh also.. It's just not pleasant. The background bokeh of the Nikkor 17-55 seems more pleasant but the price hurts.

yeah.. i get what you mean. maybe was the lighted condition? I aint carrying the 1755 with my S5 overseas haha way too heavy !!

 

[Lordjim]

It's all about "Expectations". When we pay less to get the Tamron, do we really expect to get IQ on par with the Nikkor? Personally, Hell NO! If it really is the case, Nikon's version would have been out of the market long ago.

I am suspecting that Nikon kit lenses have some part to play in this. Nikon kit lenses are pretty decent and produces reasonable images at the widest aperture throughout the entire range. I believe Nikon deliberately made it a point to do so. So for someone moving from using kit lenses to the Tamron, he would have expected the Tamron to produce 'tack sharp' images at f2.8. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I own the Tamron and acknowledge that at f2.8, the images can be a little soft but the images are still usable by my standards.

Then the whole argument about paying more to get the Tamron only to use it at smaller aperatures ie f4, f5.6 comes in. Well, personally, i paid the extra to have the added option to shoot at f2.8 when there is a need and i know (and accept) that the IQ may not be on par with the Nikon's equivalent. Frankly, if i didnt want the extra option, i would have stuck to the kit lenses which are known to be value for money.

Just my 2 cents..

Hi

Your 2 cents make a lot of sense ... :thumbsup::thumbsup: .. I totally agree.

Cheers

Lordim

 

[chanjyj]

No offence, but I think the Nikkor 17-55DX is capable of getting something much sharper than that at f/5.6.

My opinion of 3rd party lenses has never been good because they are usually only good after stopping down a couple of stops. My opinion is that if I buy a f/2.8 lens, I want to be able to get good images at f/2.8, otherwise what's the difference between a 18-55 kit lens and the f/2.8 lens other than getting a brighter view in the VF? ;p

Yah Saxon. My experience was/is the same. 17-55mm IS sharper. Provided you get focus correct on the first shot. Sometimes it's a wee bit off and misleads people.

The only 3rd party lens that produced good results (aka I won't think so much when comparing a Nikon to it) would be a Tokina.

 

[chanjyj]

It's something about the background bokeh.. Just seems a little.. I don't know how to put it.. wierd? harsh? :dunno: My 18-200VR has a similar kind of bokeh also.. It's just not pleasant. The background bokeh of the Nikkor 17-55 seems more pleasant but the price hurts.

35mm onwards. At 17mm I gave up that time.

 

[Langs]

Hi

Your 2 cents make a lot of sense ... :thumbsup::thumbsup: .. I totally agree.

Cheers

Lordim

Good to know that someone agrees with me.

Like everything else, its always a balance between 'Cents' and 'Sense'.

 

[lsisaxon]

yeah.. i get what you mean. maybe was the lighted condition? I aint carrying the 1755 with my S5 overseas haha way too heavy !!

Yes. The Nikkor 17-55 is not something I would like to carry if I'm travelling light. For the bokeh, I think it's pretty much the optical design and should not have anything to do with the lighting condition. ;p

 

[boyboy]

that's another huge plus of the tammy. it's so light u can carry it all day

however, i was wrong about the nikkor's compatibility with FF. apparently it can be used from 26mm-55mm. not bad! the tamron completely does not work on FF

now i know where the extra glass in the nikkor went to :thumbsup:

however, considering the cost of the nikkor, i'd rather spend the few hundred more and get the 24-70 f2.8 if i upgrade to FX digital

 

[Daedalus Trent]

however, i was wrong about the nikkor's compatibility with FF. apparently it can be used from 26mm-55mm. not bad! the tamron completely does not work on FF

really? cool! ;p

 

[TheChef]

yeah.. i get what you mean. maybe was the lighted condition? I aint carrying the 1755 with my S5 overseas haha way too heavy !!

It is not heavy for me leh. In fact, I felt that it is pretty light, but not as light as 16-85mm lah. :dunno:

 

[earthling82]

also in the dilemna now.

For me I thot if the Tammy screws up the TTL BL flash mode, then how could I workaround this problem? Under-expose my flash EC?

Because i shoot a lot in flash, if the tammy is unable to perform well in it, then I would go for the nikkor and sacrifice all the advantages in weight/price

 

[bigpond]

As others have said, go for the Nikkor if you use this lens for a living. I've used the Tamron old version for many years and i think it is great value for money -- it occupies a space between the el-cheapo kit lenses and the pro zooms and primes.

A lot depends on how much you are willing to spend for the extra IQ that the Nikkor has. The 17-50 is acceptable at f2.8 but suffers from flare and CA. I have problems with auto exposure (over exposure) even without flash -- some consistency issues with the metering. The Nikon is much better at f2.8. That said, you can still see an improvement in centre sharpness as you go from 2.8 to 4 to 5.6. So, the Nikon is better but it is still a zoom lens (compare its IQ at 55mm f2.8 against the AFS 60mm at f2.8 and the differences are obvious enough).

Personally, I will not spend so much $$ on a DX lens anymore. FF is the way to go.

 

[Omega23]

i tried and compared both lens before. Sharpness the tammy is better. Maybe my copy is a good one. Nikon has slightly edge in color and contrast.

I would not pay that price for dx lens too.

 

[copikau]

My take using said lense with motor. No PP just size.
Been using this since the day I bought it.
Goin to KL again next month. And guess which lense Im using ? ...

Its sharp enough for my eyes.
Well, if you have the money, get the nikon.
If you wanna save, go for this lense.
Seriously ... this lense has got potential ...

As to me, it all falls on the user behind the camera .. just me o.o2 cents ...

 

[TheChef]

The Nikkor 17-55mm is arguably the best walkabout Nikon lens for DX cameras. But, the price is very high and bros who had bought it new from the shops will lose a lot of money (about $1,000) when they decide to sell this lens in future. For the Tamron 17-50mm, most users have nothing but praise on the image quality, and sellers only lose about $100 selling it later. Image quality wise, Nikkor is the winner. Value for money wise, Tamron is the winner.

 

[Legoz]

The Nikkor 17-55mm is arguably the best walkabout Nikon lens for DX cameras. But, the price is very high and bros who had bought it new from the shops will lose a lot of money (about $1,000) when they decide to sell this lens in future. For the Tamron 17-50mm, most users have nothing but praise on the image quality, and sellers only lose about $100 selling it later. Image quality wise, Nikkor is the winner. Value for money wise, Tamron is the winner.

Then why would anyone wanna buy 2nd hand tamron if its just a $100 difference?

Going by your post, it seems to me that the 2nd hand Nikkor is very value for money. =)

Regards