What improvement will I see with a Tamron 17-50 over my 18-105 kit lens?

[londonbridge]

Hi, looking at upgrading my kit lens on my d90. Considering a tamron 17-50 for walk around. The tamron has constant 2.8 but without VR, will it actually be an improvement over my kit lens? How about sharpness?

How different is the tamron 17-50 compared to the tamron 28-75? I don't use the wide end or tele end of my current kit lens now, mostly shooting in the 30-50mm region, so the range difference doesn't seem to affect me much. Between the two, which is sharper in the 30-50mm region? Which is a better build quality? Should I get the one with or without motor? I believe my d90 body has a built in motor right?

 

[rijac]

Hi, looking at upgrading my kit lens on my d90. Considering a tamron 17-50 for walk around. The tamron has constant 2.8 but without VR, will it actually be an improvement over my kit lens? How about sharpness?

How different is the tamron 17-50 compared to the tamron 28-75? I don't use the wide end or tele end of my current kit lens now, mostly shooting in the 30-50mm region, so the range difference doesn't seem to affect me much. Between the two, which is sharper in the 30-50mm region? Which is a better build quality? Should I get the one with or without motor? I believe my d90 body has a built in motor right?

you probably have to define 'improvement' for us. i use the 28-75 with internal motor on my d60. quite happy with it as i tend to use it most for shooting kids... i find i'm usually at the tele end of this. for me, the key improvements over the kit lens (18-55vr) are around better subject isolation due to DoF control, more pleasing bokeh at tele close up range (not necessarily in these two examples shots, though), sharper in general

sample photos:

 

[saveDqueen]

As a fellow D90 user like you, i've upgraded my kit lens to Tamron 17-50 not long ago. I make sure the constraints from the kit lens were clear to me before upgrading, as i believe in maximizing the use for everything.
Considered the Tamron 28-75 too, but i mostly shoot wide. But most peeps around here mentioned that its better to invest in 28-75 IF you are going for FF in the future, i agree to that too.


The reasons i chose 17-50 was simple

- the focal length suits me alot as i do not shoot more then 50mm most of the time.

- faster f-stop provides me a shallower DoF and ability to use lower ISO and it really pays off in low-light environment.

- which enables me to use higher iso without any worries of grainy results.

- it's one of the best value F2.8 lens around with its price and quality of pics.

- I don't see & feel any difference in not having a VR on this lens(this is what i felt after owning the tammy).


Hope it helps, fellow D90er!

 

[thenomad]

i think the major improvement of the 17-50 over the 18-105 is the constant fast 2.8 aperture
VR does help when shooting still objects, but for moving ones, won't help, in fact may even hinder

i recommend the 17-50 if you're using a DX body like the d90, esp if you don't need the tele end of the 28-75

dont know about the 28-75, but i think the newer 17-50 comes with a built-in motor, not sure if you still can get one without the motor brand new

 

[SKCIN]

Just a quick question.

I believe for nikon mount, tam17-50 has 2 version, non-motor and motor (heard its slower from many here).

However, if mount on d90, will we able to use the body af motor only? Like maybe turn off AF on the lens, but ON af on body.

Does this work to bypass the af motor on the lens?