|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 144
|
![]()
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.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
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.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 569
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
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.
__________________
Last edited by TCav; Jun 1, 2012 at 6:28 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 584
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,191
|
![]()
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
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/ So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Geneva, SWITZERLAND
Posts: 681
|
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
Sony α dSLR-A580 Minolta AF 35-70mm f/4 Sony DT 50mm f/1.8 SAM Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Tamron SP AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di USD XLD |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,355
|
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 382
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 144
|
![]()
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.
__________________
Macro Guy Here-Nikon D7100-D90-Tamron 90mm-Tamron 17-50mm 2.8(non stabilized)-Nikon 35mm 1.8G, 50mm 1.4D- Nikon 70-300mmVR-Nikon 18-105mmVR-Lensbaby Composer-Nikon SB600(x2)&SB700 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|