View Single Post
Old 11-09-2007   #5 (permalink)
MagicNikon
Former Camel
 
Location: The Carolina Piedmont
Posts: 614
MagicNikon has a reputation beyond reputeMagicNikon has a reputation beyond reputeMagicNikon has a reputation beyond repute
CamelKarma: 240
Default Re: Shall we put the Nikon 17-55 vs Tamron 17-50 debate to rest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Swaman View Post
Ambrosia or tripe, that is the question? Some like ambrosia and some like tripe, that is the answer.

The Nikon 17-55mm lens is uniquely excellent in a moderately usable focal length range. This lens violates the old aadage, "You pays your money and you takes your chances." Rather, you buy this lens and you get that for which you paid.

Tom
Tom, I had two copies of the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8. I sold my first copy because I couldn't justify the price tag for that lens. I thought I would be fine with a consumer grade lens in the same FL. I ended up needing the 2.8 and the wanting the AF-s again, so I bought a second copy. I never was really super enamored by the lens. I thought that maybe it was because I didn't like the Focal Range or something.

Well, when I got a 17-55mm IS 2.8, my view on that focal range changed. My images from that lens, were so much sharper and had better contrast than both of my Nikons copies.

I always expected more from the Nikon lens, especially because of the price tag. If I ever switch back to Nikon, I won't buy that lens.

I realize some people love theirs, but I must have had two bad copies.
MagicNikon is offline   Reply With Quote