Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Nikon Lenses (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/)
-   -   Tamron 17-50 (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/tamron-17-50-a-199247/)

shutterbug1076 Jun 1, 2012 3:51 AM

Tamron 17-50
 
I bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non stabilized) to go on my D90 a few days ago and I have to say, I'm impressed.:D I was told by the salesman at my favorite shop not to go with the stabilized version because of the optical and build quality of the lens. He told me that he has had several of the stabilized versions returned due to the barrel becoming "soppy and loose" and people just not being happy with the sharpness of the lens. I was given both versions to take outside and play with them to see for myself with my personal camera. I saw the difference in sharpness quickly. At 17-50mm, I really dont see much of a need for any stabilization. I never use the VR on my kit lens and rarely on my Nikon 70-300VR. I'm a prime lens junkie normaly, but I wanted a faster zoom for some situations and especially a wide lens option. I went with the non stabilized version and I'm completely happy with it so far...Just my opinion, but I though I would share...

TCav Jun 1, 2012 5:24 AM

Teh unstabilized Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a very good lens, and for the price, it's an excellent lens, and a very good replacement for the kit 18-55 lens from any manufacturer.

The stabilized version? not so much. Sigma has some better choices, but unfortunately, there are no noteable, large aperture, stabilized, standard zooms (under $1,000.)

I'm pleased to hear that you're happy with your new lens. I'm sure it will serve you well.

paniolo Jun 1, 2012 5:49 AM

TCav,
Do you know how the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS compares? I have been looking at the unstabilized Tamron and the Sigma but have yet to pull the trigger.

TCav Jun 1, 2012 6:21 AM

The stabilized Sigma 17-50/2.8 is better than the stabilized Tamron 17-50/2.8, but it's not as good as the unstabilized Tamron 17-50/2.8.

The only really good, large aperture, stabilized, standard zoon is the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS USM, which costs ~$1,100.

corkpix Jun 1, 2012 8:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shutterbug1076 (Post 1304335)
I bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non stabilized) to go on my D90 a few days ago and I have to say, I'm impressed.:D

I'm sure you will enjoy using this excellent lens. I have one for the Canon mount
and I have found it to be very good.

zig-123 Jun 1, 2012 3:23 PM

Congrats on getting a very fine medium zoom lens. I too, have to chime in on the side of the 17-50mm Tamron Non-VC version. I use it primarily to shoot landscapes, seascapes, etc.
I shoot a lot of early/low light scenes, so a tripod comes in handy for those situations. As a result, Vibration Control is a non-issue.:)

Zig

Marawder Jun 2, 2012 4:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shutterbug1076 (Post 1304335)
I bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non stabilized) to go on my D90 a few days ago and I have to say, I'm impressed.:D

From one Tamy 17-50 owner to another, CONGRATS! :cool2:

Wingman Jun 2, 2012 6:58 PM

Post some images from it! I use a Tamron 18-270 super zoom with the vibration control as my walk around lens on the D90. Image quality is excellent. Tamron optics are excellent value for the money.

Jehan

tizeye Jun 3, 2012 8:40 PM

Another 17-50 non-stabilized user.Congrats!

And the best thing paired with the Nikon 70-300 is that they both use the same filter size, where the very positively reviewed Tamron 70-300 doesn't.

shutterbug1076 Jun 7, 2012 11:37 PM

I've been so busy with dance portraits and recital photos so I haven't had a chance to take it out on a shoot like I'd like to. I did use it for some post recital shots of everyone in the theater and I was very happy. Quick to focus in the low light and sharp, even at 2.8.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:00 AM.