Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or Nikon 17-55mm f2.8?


rajapr

New Member
Apr 22, 2011
19
0
0
#1
Hi All,

Dump question may be, but can some one please guide me what is the major difference between

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and Nikon 17-55mm f2.8? in terms of quality?? is there any major difference. I did a few online search and found Nikon lense images r most contrast and bit sharp...anything else???

Tamron is just around 650$ were as Nikon lense is around 1900$, so considering the high price of Nikon ....can we really go for Tamron or Tamron image quality is not very good?

Please confirm my understanding, also suggest me if you have any other idea like we have same config lenses in sigma and tokina too which one would you like mt to go for in this configuration


-Thanks
Raj
 

Irvine

Senior Member
Jan 1, 2010
1,037
0
36
North? South? East? West?
#2
the nikkor has faster AF speed + a more solid build.

the nikkor is made of metal, while the tamron is made of plastic.

the tamron 17-50 is alr gd enough for an average hobbyist. if u really need the fast AF speed n durability, the nikkor is a better choice. otherwise i feel it's pretty overpriced for a DX only lens
 

Last edited:

Cowseye

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2010
3,786
0
0
Singapore
www.ttlo-cowseye.com
#3
Hey Raj, are you from "The Big Bang Theory"? Big fan :p

Jokes aside, Tamron image quality is great, it is not the best of best but you are really getting it at bang for the buck. A Nikon 17-55mm will set you back almost 2k while you only pay about 1/3 the price to get 85 to 95% (Just my opinion) of image quality if you buy a Tamron (or Sigma) 17-50mm F/2.8

If you wish to spend lesser, just check out the BnS section for nikon product and buy a 2nd hand copy. They are quite cheap actually.
 

Aug 16, 2010
192
0
0
Singapore City, Singapore
#4
I've been using Tamron 17-50 VC, and am almost completely satisfied with its performance. The only thing this lens cannot do very well is flare control when you shoot directly at the sun or other bright light source.

I have never touched a copy of Nikon 17-55 lens. But if I remember correctly, according to dxomark.com, D90 coupled with Tamron scores better than when it is coupled with Nikon.
 

Last edited:

obfuscate

New Member
Nov 20, 2008
1,524
1
0
#5
Nikon 17-55mm is razor sharp, buy it if image quality is the most important factor in your purchase decision. Else get the Tamron.
 

Miao

Senior Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,069
1
38
#6
rajapr said:
Hi All,

Dump question may be, but can some one please guide me what is the major difference between

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and Nikon 17-55mm f2.8? in terms of quality?? is there any major difference. I did a few online search and found Nikon lense images r most contrast and bit sharp...anything else???

Tamron is just around 650$ were as Nikon lense is around 1900$, so considering the high price of Nikon ....can we really go for Tamron or Tamron image quality is not very good?

Please confirm my understanding, also suggest me if you have any other idea like we have same config lenses in sigma and tokina too which one would you like mt to go for in this configuration

-Thanks
Raj
Pls go and rent the 2 len and shoot extensively for a day .. u will get ur answer if nikon is worth the price over tamron. All the advise here really may not be your answer as different people have difference expectation.

If u r a pro, u will understand why nikon is worth the high price, if u shoot casually and have not used the nikon before, u might not know what u r missing out. But end of the day, just get something u can afford and start shooting.
 

rajapr

New Member
Apr 22, 2011
19
0
0
#7
Thank you All for your reply :)
 

Sgdevilzz

Senior Member
May 16, 2010
1,631
1
38
#8
Cowseye said:
Hey Raj, are you from "The Big Bang Theory"? Big fan :p

Jokes aside, Tamron image quality is great, it is not the best of best but you are really getting it at bang for the buck. A Nikon 17-55mm will set you back almost 2k while you only pay about 1/3 the price to get 85 to 95% (Just my opinion) of image quality if you buy a Tamron (or Sigma) 17-50mm F/2.8

If you wish to spend lesser, just check out the BnS section for nikon product and buy a 2nd hand copy. They are quite cheap actually.
Love that show too! His sister is hot too :bsmile:

Anywayyyy.. TS, apart from 17-55mm, consider the FX lens, 24-70mm. Almost the same price as the 17-55mm. I suppose its Even faster AF and sharper.
 

Apr 9, 2006
313
0
0
Singapore, Singapore
#9
I owned the Tamron and sold it off shortly after. I found that the image quality is pretty poor. Was doing a night photography long exposure shot and realised that the Tamron does not give me very good colours, when I compared it with the Nikon 18-200mm. you should seriously borrow one and try it out yourself before buying.
 

Cowseye

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2010
3,786
0
0
Singapore
www.ttlo-cowseye.com
#11
blue_kelvinsg said:
I owned the Tamron and sold it off shortly after. I found that the image quality is pretty poor. Was doing a night photography long exposure shot and realised that the Tamron does not give me very good colours, when I compared it with the Nikon 18-200mm. you should seriously borrow one and try it out yourself before buying.
Dunno abt u but my night shot with my ex tamron 17-50mm has been great.
 

bruggink

New Member
Jul 2, 2008
901
0
0
#14
Hi All,

Dump question may be, but can some one please guide me what is the major difference between

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and Nikon 17-55mm f2.8? in terms of quality?? is there any major difference. I did a few online search and found Nikon lense images r most contrast and bit sharp...anything else???

Tamron is just around 650$ were as Nikon lense is around 1900$, so considering the high price of Nikon ....can we really go for Tamron or Tamron image quality is not very good?

Please confirm my understanding, also suggest me if you have any other idea like we have same config lenses in sigma and tokina too which one would you like mt to go for in this configuration


-Thanks
Raj
There is a reason (sorry, in fact we actually have a few reasons) why one glass costs you $2k and the other costs you only $650.

Those who have used a 17-55mm will know that there is really no fight in the comparison. One shall only consider Tamron if the person is not willing to pay for the Nikon lens.
 

chanjyj

New Member
Apr 8, 2007
1,909
0
0
#15
Do not forget that the Tamron does not support TTL-BL flash. Only TTL
 

Guapo

New Member
Aug 1, 2007
78
0
0
#16
I've coupled D3100 with a 35mm f1.8 and i love the pictures it produces.
Good in low light and nice bokeh.

Wondering if it's advisable to replace the 35mm with a Tamrom 17-50mm ?
I want a simple multi-purpose lens and i dun need to use more than 50mm.
I love taking protraits and street shots without spending a small fortune.

Advice pls.
 

Last edited:

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#17
I've coupled D3100 with a 35mm f1.8 and i love the pictures it produces.
Good in low light and nice bokeh.

Wondering if it's advisable to replace the 35mm with a Tamrom 17-50mm ?
I want a simple multi-purpose lens and i dun need to use more than 50mm.
I love taking protraits and street shots without spending a small fortune.

Advice pls.
you get whatever lens which will suit your style and usage, whatever people said useful to them may not applicable on you, so to get a better answer, rent the lens and shoot whatever you normally shoot for a day or two, you will find out yourself.

at a very low cost and sure win method.

hope this help.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,657
68
48
lil red dot
#18
Do not forget that the Tamron does not support TTL-BL flash. Only TTL
Actually it does work. Not so sure about older copies of the 17-50, but most current copies in the last 2-3 years work fine.

You can read up the tests done here, with a D90 and a Tamron 17-50/2.8 shooting in TT-BL mode.
http://desmonddowns-ttlblflash.blogspot.com/2009/06/nikons-new-ttlbl-flash-and-cls-wireless.html

[vid]he35-IRSd2c[/vid]
 

Last edited:

Omega23

New Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,074
0
0
#19
I know many pros who are using dx are using tamron 17-50, reasons are the color is more neutral and sharpness is sharper or equivalent to 17-55 from corner to corner. The lower weight and the much cheaper price are the pulling factor too. This is provided u can get a sharp copy. There are ppl who dislike the zoom ring of the 17-55 as it is thin and very near to the body.

The cons of the 17-50 is of cos the build.. The focus ring turns as the lens af which some ppl dislike. Some ppl also discover the front element loosen after some time and focusing in low light is slower.. Both issue I didn't encounter for my 3 year old copy. Another issue is the 17-50 does not af in taking dslr video.

Hope this can help u to decide which lens to get.. Do rent both to test but as I mentioned if u can get a sharp tamron 17-50 u will not get the over priced DX 17-55. Personally like many mention for the price of 17-55 dx I rather get the 17-35 FX or the 24-70.
 

Last edited:

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#20
If you're using a D3100, I would suggest you stay away from the Tamron lenses without USD/PZD. From my experience, the BIM (built-in-motor) versions of their lenses, or at least the 17-50, have problems focusing sometimes, and hunt a lot, refusing to lock focus. The AF is pretty fast (not as fast as ultrasonic motors but fast enough) when it works, but when it doesn't, it just takes its time.
 

Top Bottom