new Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC
 

Seasons greetings to you all.

has any one gotten this this lens yet that can give some personal reviews on it

Dave

There are some anecdotal accounts that it is very good, but I'm anxiously awaiting objective test reports. I REALLY want a stabilized, large aperture standard zoom, and it would be my first choice, but I'm also keeping an eye out for the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS and 18-50/2.8-4.5 OS. The test reports at SLRGear.com on the latter are pretty good for a $300 stabilized lens, so I might be happy with it if the other two bomb.

thanks for the reply
i think my mind is set on the Nikon 70-300vr
but i am twisting and turning on the
Tamron 17-50 or the Nikon 16-85

Dave

The large aperture and low cost make the Tamron (and Sigma) options very attractive. The only advantage the 16-85 has is added range, especially on the short end. I own the older Sigma 18-50 f 2.8 and am very happy with it, and by all accounts the Tamron 17-50 is even better.

I had the unstabilized Tamron 17-50/2.8 for my Minolta, and was very pleased with it. I'm looking forward to good test results for the stabilized version, but I'm keeping my eyes open for alternatives.

i just dont get it
canon and tamron has been able to produce a 17-50 2.8 stabilized lens
has nikon fallen asleep or was it i who did not do my home work enough before i pulled the plug and went with Nikon.

Dave

In addition to the kit lens, Nikon has the AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR and the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR stabilized standard zoom lenses, both of which are very good (except for the vignetting). What's missing is the "large aperture" part.

Canon has the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, which is also very good (except for the vignetting), but it's ~$1,000.

For reasonably priced, large aperture, stabilized standard zoom lenses, the Tamron 17-50 VC and Sigma 17-70 OS and 18-50 OS are all there is.

So far.

my eyes were on the Tamron, after reading what few reviews out there
- sharpness is there
- Vc works great
the two turn offs most mentioned
- autofocus is noisey
- vc causes the image in the viewfinder to jump for a least a second
i wonder

exactly how noisey is niosey, autofocus in film days had some degree of noise, which to me was acceptable then as i never had USM.

image jump in viewfinder, hard to say if this would create a turn off.

Nikon has a 17-55/2.8 no VC, i guess if they put it in , that lens could cost close to $2g, which i douth i would pay for.
i think i will have to call my friend in Miami and see if he can organize both the N 16-85 and the T 17-50, jump on a plane , try them out and decide then.
if only i was young again, and did not need VC. but reality is reality, i need VC and hauling a tripod is a nono, tried a monopod and got worst results.

did some web research and found strange report from Ken rockwell and lens reviews.
both claimed the there is not much difference between the 18-200 ans the 16-85 in image quality.
so i guess this narrows it down to the tamron and sigma

Dave

While they both vignette a lot, the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX AF-S Nikkor is a lot sharper, has a lot less chromatic aberration, and has less distortion than the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR II Nikkor.

Ken Rockwell says there's not much difference? :rolleyes: