Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Tamron 28-75 f/2.8?

[ride16]

I am pretty sure I have my next lens choice down to these two. I have a D90, and the only lens I have for it right now is a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. I'm looking for something with a bit wider angel, and a macro. I know the 28-75 isn't a *true* macro, but I'm hoping it will be good enough for what I want. I have looked over reviews, and looked at pictures from both lenses, and I still can't decide. Just wondering if any of you have either of these lenses, and/or what your thoughts are on them?

[Mark1616]

Generally with an APS-C size sensor the 17-50 is a more normal coverage if you want to shoot landscape, the 28 can still be too long. However if you only want to go a bit wider than then 50 having the extra reach at the long of the 28-75 could work for you.

For my sort of shooting I would personally go with the 17-50 but we all have different needs.

[rjseeney]

Originally Posted by Mark1616

Generally with an APS-C size sensor the 17-50 is a more normal coverage if you want to shoot landscape, the 28 can still be too long. However if you only want to go a bit wider than then 50 having the extra reach at the long of the 28-75 could work for you.

For my sort of shooting I would personally go with the 17-50 but we all have different needs.

I have the 28-75, and generally use it for indoor sports (basketball/volleyball, as I have access to the floor). It gives me just the tele I need to fill the frame. As I have done a couple weddings this year, I'm looking to probably get the 17-50, as the 28 is just not wide enough for general use. Both are pretty good lenses for the price (especially compared to the Nikon versions).

[vIZnquest]

I have both and reach for the 17-50mm most of the time. I would rather have the Tokina 16-50 though if it had come out before I got the Tamron 17-50mm but it is a great lens. Just the wider at 16mm would be a nice thing to have. Go and check out Pbase for picture examples of those lenses.

[rjseeney]

Originally Posted by vIZnquest

I have both and reach for the 17-50mm most of the time. I would rather have the Tokina 16-50 though if it had come out before I got the Tamron 17-50mm but it is a great lens. Just the wider at 16mm would be a nice thing to have. Go and check out Pbase for picture examples of those lenses.

I just did a summer cleaning, selling off some unused/replaced equipment and was looking to pick up the Tamron 17-50. However, I think I'm leaning towards the Tokina 16-50 now.

[ride16]

Is the only reason you guys are leaning towards the Tokina due to the wider angle (16mm vs 17mm)? I'm just curious because I read somewhere in a post asking about the two, most people seemed to prefer the tamron (but I'm guessing most had not had any experience with the tokina).

I've decided on going with the 17-50mm range lens, but now it's down to deciding between the tamron, the sigma (HSM is tempting) or the tokina.

[rjseeney]

Comparing the sigma and the tamron, most people prefer the tamron. I'm leaning toward the tokina for a few reasons. The first is the extra 1mm on the wide end (which does make a difference). The second is the build quality is supposed to be significantly better (at the expense of a larger size). The main reason however is I am trading some equipment at KEH, and the Tamron isn't currently available....the Tokina is. I haven't found a ton or reviews for the Tokina, but from what I've seen it compares favorably to the Tamron (although not necessarily better) in terms of optics. The advantages to me do justify the extra expense, although it is hard to argue with the price/value of the Tamron lens.