Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 30, 2009, 7:04 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default 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
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 30, 2009, 8:34 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

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.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2009, 11:27 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2009, 11:54 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dafiryde View Post
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.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2009, 1:22 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

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.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2010, 8:10 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

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
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2010, 8:51 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

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.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2010, 10:41 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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.
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2010, 10:00 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

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
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2010, 6:39 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dafiryde View Post
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.
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?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:16 PM.