Ben, I recently purchased both the Tamron 17-50 (new w/ motor) and the Nikon 17-55. If I need 100% reliability I bring the Nikon (most of the time), otherwise the Tammy goes with me just because its light and easy to carry around your neck. Focus speed is a tad slower but it gets the job done none the less. Image quality... well you have read the reviews, I really see no difference between them. If you are doing pro work keep the Nikon, but otherwise I see no reason to spend double the cash when the results can be achieved equally with the Tammy. I have been contemplating selling the Tammy so if you want it PM me and I'll give you a good price.
Thanks Etienne, but I've decided to keep the 17-55. In time I can see myself picking up an 85 f/1.4, but the 17-55 is doing great for me at the moment, and it's pretty good if I can mugged (as a weapon, of course.)
haahaahahhaaa... ... I actually smacked some dude on the head with my 17-55 at the airport as he tried to snatch my backpack. He was stunned for about 15 sec., long enough for me and my buddies to hold him down and wait for security. Anyways you will be happy you kept the Nikon in the end.
I sold my Tamron 17-50 F2.8 with new motor thing, sure it was sharp, but I got tired of the rotating front ring, a real disturbance for me, and not often mentioned for some reason
Some have said earlier that the difference is not such a big deal.
Try shooting a wedding and then tell me that it's not a big deal.
I attempted to shoot a wedding with the tamron 17-50 and had a huge number of soft images because it took so dang long to focus. It was totally unacceptable. My keeper percentage went up over 50% after switching to the Nikon version.
Ha! Sounds excellent. And Jam, I've heard about that rotating ring; it's put me off to be frank.
I was debating about whether to sell the 17-55 and picking up an old 35-70 f/2.8 and then a Sigma 10-20 to cover the wide end (I hardly ever use 17-25). How does that sound?
Ok ok....I am sorry. I shouldn't do that to you, Ben. My apologies.
If you're not using the range that the 17-55 offers, then there is no point in keeping it. I had the 10-20 and loved it to death. The beauty about lenses is that you can resell them and lose very little, as long as you take care of your equipment. Because of this, I have had the chance to try out so many lenses. People can post their opinions all day long, but there's nothing like trying the lenses out for yourself.
Yeah I've actually done a lot of that. I've gone through 4 bodies and about 15 lenses in about 2 years; just because I wanted to try every route and find the perfect kit for me. I've settled on the D300 for my perfect body, but I know I will want a D700 if and when I turn pro.
Meanwhile, I'm still thinking a 35-70 f/2.8 (or even maybe a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8) and Sigma 10-20 would be the best option.
I hear the 35-70 is real nice...but I also hear the contrast and color is a bit lacking, but that can be easily fixed in PP work. I recently acquired a Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 and that sucker is sharp as a razor and produces similar color tones to Nikkor lenses. May be worth considering.
My 35-70 F2.8 does great colors and exacting details, truly a super lens, but does not extend to 500mm. DRATS! Here are some with the lens at an Iris Show and Sale
The 28-70 f2.6-2.8 is based off a Angenieux design and is probably the best fast mid-range zoom of its era. But the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is smaller, lighter and sharper wide open. The Tokina rivals the Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 in size.
Frankly, unless you get a good deal on it, I'd skip it. The extra 1/6 of a stop is unnoticable and there are better options on the market today (The Nikon's and the Tamron).
I've owned both the Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 and the Tamron 28-75 (the latter in K mount). I miss the Tamron, but not the Tokina (which was quite good but not stellar like the Tamron).
No typo, that's really what it is! And it's supposed to be designed after the famous Angenioux design and can be had used for less than $300. Great lens for the budget-conscious
mawz wrote:
The 28-70 f2.6-2.8 is based off a Angenieux design and is probably the best fast mid-range zoom of its era. But the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is smaller, lighter and sharper wide open. The Tokina rivals the Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 in size.
Frankly, unless you get a good deal on it, I'd skip it. The extra 1/6 of a stop is unnoticable and there are better options on the market today (The Nikon's and the Tamron).
I've owned both the Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 and the Tamron 28-75 (the latter in K mount). I miss the Tamron, but not the Tokina (which was quite good but not stellar like the Tamron)....Show more →
I have also heard that the Tamron is a real good performer. And basically ANYTHING is lighter than the Nikkor 28-70 . Are we making this any easier on you, Ben?
Very much, thank you. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna sell the 17-55, I just don't know a reasonable price. It's completely mint, with box etc. They go for anywhere between £750-£1000 new in the UK, but I really wanted about £700 for it; or is that asking too much?
EDIT: Aha! Just realised the Sigma 10-20 takes 77 filters, so I won't need any adapters to fit my Kood system to the 10-20. Even better.
... I actually smacked some dude on the head with my 17-55 at the airport as he tried to snatch my backpack. He was stunned for about 15 sec., long enough for me and my buddies to hold him down and wait for security. Anyways you will be happy you kept the Nikon in the end.
Joe
