lighter, using smaller size filter, and also your heart won't be so pain if you lost it or damage it
Is the 17-55mm f/2.8 worth it for DX?
- Thread starter BokehMaster
- Start date
I tried a my friend's copy, which he got before the VR version was released. Firstly, the weight. The Nikon is too heavy for me when i travel. Next, there is nothing(not even the Sigma) around the same price which can match its IQ, at least for the one I tried. The build is not as good, but it will last. The bokeh is slightly harsher than the Nikon. But you can't go wrong with this lens.
My brief affair with Tamron’s 17-50mm f/2.8 VC on a Nikon D7000 - zarekrgraphy
And what catchlights mentioned, smaller filter size means even more savings.
Last edited:
Problem with the Tamron is that the focusing is not very accurate in low lighting condition. There is a way to get around it, which is to use continuous AF. But you have to know how the lens perform to get the best out of it. That said, for most hobbyists the Tamron is good enough. But if one wants to go into event photography and doing paid jobs, the the accuracy of the AF can be really frustrating.
The Tamron 17-50mm provides excellent value for money.
I think it is sharp enough for most situations, light and sold at a good price.
If you are really hard up for optical stabilization, you'd have to look for the Sigma 17-50mm OS. But as I understand, you would be crossing the S$1,000 barrier with the Sigma.
I think it is sharp enough for most situations, light and sold at a good price.
If you are really hard up for optical stabilization, you'd have to look for the Sigma 17-50mm OS. But as I understand, you would be crossing the S$1,000 barrier with the Sigma.
Last edited:
Value for money, but the corner is really bad , to me it kind of ruin the photo, even though the center is sharp. From my experience, the focusing sometime give me problem in bright outdoor environment.
I guess i rather get a 18-105 and a 35mm plus 50mm prime , as least focusing doesnt give me a problem on nikon. My opinion only .. Pls dun shoot me .. Haha ...
I guess i rather get a 18-105 and a 35mm plus 50mm prime , as least focusing doesnt give me a problem on nikon. My opinion only .. Pls dun shoot me .. Haha ...
Miao said:
Wow. Really? You may have got a bad copy. Mine doesn't have the problem you mentioned.
this is the one reason i would avoid the lens. that AF, esp of the BIM version is frustrating and usually misses by a small margin, and occasionally would just refuse to lock on. because of this i went for the nikon for a recent job even if i had to pay more to use it for those few days. another thing to take note of is that the front group starts to get loose and may actually fall out at some point in time; this happened to both mine, and a friend's copy of the lens.
for casual shooting though, it is probably the best value for money in the range.
this is the one reason i would avoid the lens. that AF, esp of the BIM version is frustrating and usually misses by a small margin, and occasionally would just refuse to lock on. because of this i went for the nikon for a recent job even if i had to pay more to use it for those few days. another thing to take note of is that the front group starts to get loose and may actually fall out at some point in time; this happened to both mine, and a friend's copy of the lens.
for casual shooting though, it is probably the best value for money in the range.
Actually, the 17-50 OS is much better than all versions of the Tamron. It was the older 18-50 Sigma what lose out to the Tamron.
Probably you haven't use the Nikon 17-55mm before and that's why you are doubting it. Since you are paying some much $$$ for the lens, it's only right for the lens to do its own justification. Rent the lens for a single day and see what the lens can offer. Look at the pictures and decide if the sharpness is to your liking.
I dare say every single penny that you spent on a Nikon 17-55mm or 24-70mm is worth the money. Those who owned it will know.
I dare say every single penny that you spent on a Nikon 17-55mm or 24-70mm is worth the money. Those who owned it will know.
To offer a different view - i would say that the answer is...NO it is not worth it.
I think a general kit lens for daylight shooting plus one or two primes will give you better variety and cost less.
For example, i do not think that any zoom lens can touch the 35 f/1.8 or 50's (f/1.4 or f/1.8) at that same focal length.
I think a general kit lens for daylight shooting plus one or two primes will give you better variety and cost less.
For example, i do not think that any zoom lens can touch the 35 f/1.8 or 50's (f/1.4 or f/1.8) at that same focal length.
You should try shooting actual day wedding with one camera body and the 35mm and 50mm.
I think you do not understand what a standard fast zoom is meant to do.
Last edited:
You should try shooting actual day wedding with one camera body and the 35mm and 50mm.
I think you do not understand what a standard fast zoom is meant to do.
Fair point - i am a recreational photographer and typically have time to change the componsition and even a lens if i need to. But i have had the Tammy 17-50, 28-75 and the canon 17-55 ... all are good but not as sharp as any of the primes thaty i have now, or have owned.
Clearly a prime set up is not for everyone
Fair point - i am a recreational photographer and typically have time to change the componsition and even a lens if i need to. But i have had the Tammy 17-50, 28-75 and the canon 17-55 ... all are good but not as sharp as any of the primes thaty i have now, or have owned.
Clearly a prime set up is not for everyone
I have a couple of zoom lenses that are sharper than some primes out there...
Probably mixed them up. Don't think 17-5 0OS was out when i was testing out the Tameron. Thanks for clearing it up
Probably mixed them up. Don't think 17-5 0OS was out when i was testing out the Tameron. Thanks for clearing it up
How long ago did you test the Tamron?
Similar threads
