Which one you'd consider

hemohemo · 25th December 2007

Hi,

Given a choice, which one would you consider?

Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 DC EX macro
Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP Di II XR
Tokina AF 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX

Never mind the 1~2 mm difference at the widest.

Let's consider from these angles: build and picture quality, etc.

Any other factors will you consider?

How much each please?

Thanks.
cs

gohaj · 25th December 2007

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8

jmmtn4aj · 25th December 2007

Tamron. I've heard great things about it's optics compared to the rest, even though it's build quality seems subpar.

2ichigo2 · 25th December 2007

Tamron~ im using it... Read a few reviews between sigma and tamron... The review on tamron is more outstanding~

sanith · 25th December 2007

that seems like a unanimous vote!! iam on the same boat as well. thanks.

stupidbloke · 25th December 2007

YES MOST DEFINITELY TAMRON!!! im a proud owner. and its a real nice lense fast and sharp

rh89 · 25th December 2007

I have the Tamron too.

FilterFunk · 25th December 2007

best bang/IQ for buck: Tamron
best built: Tokina

the Tamron has a smaller filter diameter too, cheaper filters

spartacus.ret · 25th December 2007

i'll only consider the tamron 17-50mm, and perhaps the sigma 18-50mm.. but will still buy the tamron.

hemohemo · 25th December 2007

Looks like Tomron is the one to go, but I remember there was discussion about Tamron's overexposure with Nikon. Is that confirmed?

calebk · 26th December 2007

Originally Posted by hemohemo

Looks like Tomron is the one to go, but I remember there was discussion about Tamron's overexposure with Nikon. Is that confirmed?

Right now it seems copy dependent. Do note that the overexposure is with TTL-BL and direct flash. If you seldom or don't ever shoot TTL-BL or direct flash, or both, then don't worry.

BlueBull · 7th January 2008

I'm using a D80 with the 55-200mm VR and thinking of adding a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 to replace my 18-135mm.

Thing is, I will be loosing the 51-135mm reach of the 18-135mm lens with the Tamron but will get f2.8 fastness.

In a bind as the 18-135mm is my walkabout lens with my 50mm F1.8.

Do you reckon I should get the Tamron?

StreetShooter · 7th January 2008

Have not tried the rest.

But I use my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 a lot.

Sometimes when I look at the pics on the computer I wonder which prime lens I used to take the picture. Then I realise it was the Tamron. It's that good.

calebk · 7th January 2008

Originally Posted by BlueBull

I'm using a D80 with the 55-200mm VR and thinking of adding a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 to replace my 18-135mm.

Thing is, I will be loosing the 51-135mm reach of the 18-135mm lens with the Tamron but will get f2.8 fastness.

In a bind as the 18-135mm is my walkabout lens with my 50mm F1.8.

Do you reckon I should get the Tamron?

Keep the 18-135 for days you don't want to change lenses, and go ahead and get the tamron if you need the f/2.8.

zachmus · 7th January 2008

Got the tamron one not long ago but the built i still prefer tokina. Now the tamron basically almost my walkabout lens for normal usage.

lumin008 · 7th January 2008

Originally Posted by hemohemo

Looks like Tomron is the one to go, but I remember there was discussion about Tamron's overexposure with Nikon. Is that confirmed?

I think that was limited to flash. Mind did on my D80 and D200, but I know many didn't experience this at all.

lumin008 · 7th January 2008

FWIW, I had the Tamron (twice) and the Tokina (once) but sold them off.

I first had the Tamron. It was sharp at f2.8 at all focal length, but was unhappy with yellow cast (a bit too warm coming from a Nikon/Fuji camp) and did not like the balance and handling of the lens. AF was a bit noisy but fast and accurate. Built quality is fine. CA is moderate.

It took a couple of weeks to find a copy of the Tokina that was acceptable at f/2.8, but eventually found one. Heavier and better built, the Tokina is a faster focuser and quieter, but not more accurate. Colour balance is more neutral. CA is a big problem under f/5.6.

I bought the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S but even that was far from perfect.

Tamron is the cheapest, so it have definately one advantage over all the others!!

ortega · 7th January 2008

i did a quick and dirty test

http://forum.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=306889

look for links in the thread for other tests

i bought the tamron as well

daydreamz · 7th January 2008

tamron undoubtedly...love it love it love it! bought it a year ago and not even missing "upgrading" to the proverbial hallowed nikon 17-55 2.8!

bang for buck = tamron 17-50 2.8 imho

25th December 2007	#1
hemohemo New Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 49	Which one you'd consider Hi, Given a choice, which one would you consider? Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 DC EX macro Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP Di II XR Tokina AF 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Never mind the 1~2 mm difference at the widest. Let's consider from these angles: build and picture quality, etc. Any other factors will you consider? How much each please? Thanks. cs

25th December 2007	#2
gohaj Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 3,469	Re: Which one you'd consider Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8

25th December 2007	#3
jmmtn4aj Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Singapore Posts: 996	Re: Which one you'd consider Tamron. I've heard great things about it's optics compared to the rest, even though it's build quality seems subpar. __________________ Zenfolio

25th December 2007	#4
2ichigo2 Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: In the East Posts: 427	Re: Which one you'd consider Tamron~ im using it... Read a few reviews between sigma and tamron... The review on tamron is more outstanding~ __________________ http://2ichigo2.multiply.com - Canon 400D User - Everyone was once a Noob

25th December 2007	#5
sanith Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 61	Re: Which one you'd consider that seems like a unanimous vote!! iam on the same boat as well. thanks.

25th December 2007	#6
stupidbloke Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 291	Re: Which one you'd consider YES MOST DEFINITELY TAMRON!!! im a proud owner. and its a real nice lense fast and sharp __________________ nikon d700 nikkor 50mm f1.4 nikkor 55mm micro ais f2.8 nikkor 35 f2 sb 600 sb800

25th December 2007	#7
rh89 New Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 44	Re: Which one you'd consider I have the Tamron too.

25th December 2007	#8
FilterFunk Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: 卧龙岗 Posts: 2,660	Re: Which one you'd consider best bang/IQ for buck: Tamron best built: Tokina the Tamron has a smaller filter diameter too, cheaper filters

25th December 2007	#9
spartacus.ret Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,358	Re: Which one you'd consider i'll only consider the tamron 17-50mm, and perhaps the sigma 18-50mm.. but will still buy the tamron.

25th December 2007	#10
hemohemo New Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 49	Re: Which one you'd consider Looks like Tomron is the one to go, but I remember there was discussion about Tamron's overexposure with Nikon. Is that confirmed?

7th January 2008	#12
BlueBull Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Punggol Posts: 839	Re: Which one you'd consider I'm using a D80 with the 55-200mm VR and thinking of adding a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 to replace my 18-135mm. Thing is, I will be loosing the 51-135mm reach of the 18-135mm lens with the Tamron but will get f2.8 fastness. In a bind as the 18-135mm is my walkabout lens with my 50mm F1.8. Do you reckon I should get the Tamron? __________________ Nikon D3FXMarkIIIDS-1H with 5000mm f/1.0 & 17-5000mm f/0.5 & 900mm Macro f/0.4 & 70-2000mm f/0.8

7th January 2008	#13
StreetShooter Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Katong Posts: 4,702	Re: Which one you'd consider Have not tried the rest. But I use my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 a lot. Sometimes when I look at the pics on the computer I wonder which prime lens I used to take the picture. Then I realise it was the Tamron. It's that good.

7th January 2008	#15
zachmus Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Tanah Merah Posts: 245	Re: Which one you'd consider Got the tamron one not long ago but the built i still prefer tokina. Now the tamron basically almost my walkabout lens for normal usage.

7th January 2008	#17
lumin008 Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 364	Re: Which one you'd consider FWIW, I had the Tamron (twice) and the Tokina (once) but sold them off. I first had the Tamron. It was sharp at f2.8 at all focal length, but was unhappy with yellow cast (a bit too warm coming from a Nikon/Fuji camp) and did not like the balance and handling of the lens. AF was a bit noisy but fast and accurate. Built quality is fine. CA is moderate. It took a couple of weeks to find a copy of the Tokina that was acceptable at f/2.8, but eventually found one. Heavier and better built, the Tokina is a faster focuser and quieter, but not more accurate. Colour balance is more neutral. CA is a big problem under f/5.6. I bought the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S but even that was far from perfect. Tamron is the cheapest, so it have definately one advantage over all the others!!

7th January 2008	#18
ortega Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: NorthEast Posts: 16,507	Re: Which one you'd consider i did a quick and dirty test http://forum.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=306889 look for links in the thread for other tests i bought the tamron as well __________________ The Law

7th January 2008	#19
daydreamz Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: In a not so green world!! :( Posts: 529	Re: Which one you'd consider tamron undoubtedly...love it love it love it! bought it a year ago and not even missing "upgrading" to the proverbial hallowed nikon 17-55 2.8! bang for buck = tamron 17-50 2.8 imho