Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC or Nikon 18-85 VR


lyk76

New Member
Dec 31, 2007
67
0
0
Central East, Singapore
#1
Hi, I am a D90 user with T18-50 2.8VC and 70-300 VR. Currently thinking if it is better to get a Nikon 18-85VR to replace my T17-50. Based on forum review, both are sharp lens, so any other difference other than the 35mm extra reach. Btwn my shooting style are mainly landscape, portrait, and recently playing w telerange.
CSer pls give me some advice?
 

Feb 17, 2009
388
0
0
#2
Hi, I am a D90 user with T18-50 2.8VC and 70-300 VR. Currently thinking if it is better to get a Nikon 18-85VR to replace my T17-50. Based on forum review, both are sharp lens, so any other difference other than the 35mm extra reach. Btwn my shooting style are mainly landscape, portrait, and recently playing w telerange.
CSer pls give me some advice?
why u wan to "downgrade" ??
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#5
You'll lose the larger f/2.8 max aperture of the Tamron. If you can live with that, then go ahead.
 

kwanhan

New Member
Aug 17, 2009
826
2
0
31
Redhill
#6
not sure what version your tamron 17-50 is (built in motor or not)... but i should think the AF-S motor would be faster (never tried the 16-85 though)

apart from that probably might be the colour rendition differences (if any)

anybody can comment to give TS an idea?

personally i would pick the large aperture ... more practical use for me than the longer reach, but then again, that's down to your application and style of shooting
 

s1221ljc

New Member
May 7, 2006
821
1
0
#7
Hi, I am a D90 user with T18-50 2.8VC and 70-300 VR. Currently thinking if it is better to get a Nikon 18-85VR to replace my T17-50. Based on forum review, both are sharp lens, so any other difference other than the 35mm extra reach. Btwn my shooting style are mainly landscape, portrait, and recently playing w telerange.
CSer pls give me some advice?
I am a D90 user with a 16-85 & 70-300 lens. Went thru the same rationalisation process & got the Nikon. Reasons - personal preference for original Nikon lens for Nikon camera, reliability of servicing, generally better resale value. Loved that little extra wide of 24mm FF equiv for landscapes (e.g. covering mountains, grand vistas as I like travel/nature photography), the wide angle perspectives/creative "distortion" effects from this, & the vital extra reach at tele end for portraits that easily & smoothly cover shoulder/half-body/full length shots with thinner DOF (extremely useful for modelling, beauty shots). Lastly & most crucially, the IQ is one of the best for DX mid-range zooms. With VRII, high ISO & good hand technique, could get round & live with the smaller aperture for low light photography... Hope the sharing helps :)
 

Last edited:

jeff7id

Senior Member
Oct 15, 2008
4,863
10
38
#8
Hi, I am a D90 user with T18-50 2.8VC and 70-300 VR. Currently thinking if it is better to get a Nikon 18-85VR to replace my T17-50. Based on forum review, both are sharp lens, so any other difference other than the 35mm extra reach. Btwn my shooting style are mainly landscape, portrait, and recently playing w telerange.
CSer pls give me some advice?
Nikon 16-85 + Nikon 70-300 could cover the range from 16-300 mm.
Do you intend to buy Nikon 16-85, due to its versatility for travelling ?
If you do, then go to Nikon 16-85 and sell your Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC

If you do portrait a lot, in my opinion, you still need to top up with another 50mm prime lens. :)
 

s1221ljc

New Member
May 7, 2006
821
1
0
#9
Nikon 16-85 + Nikon 70-300 could cover the range from 16-300 mm.
Do you intend to buy Nikon 16-85, due to its versatility for travelling ?
If you do, then go to Nikon 16-85 and sell your Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC

If you do portrait a lot, in my opinion, you still need to top up with another 50mm prime lens. :)

Fully agree. Zoom is good if one need to work fast or is on the move. If there's time for setup etc, primes are best & the 50mm f1.8 is an ideal complement esp for low light levels to this configuration. And its cheap too!
 

Last edited:

wmayeo

New Member
Feb 11, 2008
1,571
0
0
Singapore
#10
Hi, I am a D90 user with T18-50 2.8VC and 70-300 VR. Currently thinking if it is better to get a Nikon 18-85VR to replace my T17-50. Based on forum review, both are sharp lens, so any other difference other than the 35mm extra reach. Btwn my shooting style are mainly landscape, portrait, and recently playing w telerange.
CSer pls give me some advice?
Do you need to shoot at low light? If you do, then Tamron 17-50 would be better for you to keep. Between I don't have the 17-50/2.8.

16-85 is sharp, versatile when you use it between group photo shots, travel holiday, some landscape & event reportage. Add a hotshoe flash when necessary. I didn't choose the 18-200 becos it cost about 200-250 dollars more and it doesn't perform that well at the end range, and I needed the extra 2mm at the wide angle range. You can't buy the extra 2mm when you need it.

You have the 70-300VR, that's good enough to use during daylight. And it covers between the 70-85mm range if you miss getting the 16-85. How about consider a used 18-70? That would fill your missing range from 50-70mm.
 

s1221ljc

New Member
May 7, 2006
821
1
0
#11
So many good suggestions. To stir the waters up more, if you keep the 17-50, another option is go for the new & superb Nikon 28-300mm lens & dump the 70-300, that way all is covered (& you are prepared for future upgrading) :):):)

Seriously, whats good for you depends on what you really need & do. 95% of my photography is between the 16mm to 85mm range & 5% between the 70 to 300mm range & I must have the extras at both ends, not to mention I dont like having to change my lens unless absolutely necessary. With these two lens, I feel a sense of total freedom to concentrate on taking photographs & never have to come up short. In fact, I have another D90 for the 70-300 so I dont have to change lens, have a backup, & even take all those nice long shots at 200mm > for portraiture.

Have fun...

P.S. I have the 18-70 too, its is superb value for money & close, very close to the 16-85 in IQ.
 

Last edited:

lyk76

New Member
Dec 31, 2007
67
0
0
Central East, Singapore
#12
WOW... Thanks for all the comments.
I do feel most of my shooting range are between 18 to 50 about 60% of the times. The remaining 30 % are between 50 to 80 range and remaining 10% >100.

As for low light shots, i do appreciate the f2.8 capability but seldom step down all the way to 2.8 as the DOF kinda too shallow...

Will be visiting HK in Dec. If I can get a good deal, I might go for the 16-85. ;p
 

Top Bottom