Shall we put the Nikon 17-55 vs Tamron 17-50 debate to rest?

[Nikonfreak]

Thom Hogan reviews the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Review by Thom Hogan

See the link...

Julio

[rootrider]

Well I currently own both a good copy of the Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX as well as the Tamron 17-50 2.8. They're both amazingly good.. but I hate the Sigma's slow AF speed. Of course their new HSM version solves this problem.. but also roughly doubles the price over the non-macro/non-hsm version, making it just that much closer to being in used 17-55 territory. The Tamron's focus speed is much faster than the non-HSM sigma.

I think the Tamron suffers from a little less CA than my Sigma lens does but the build is much more like a Nikon lens than the Sigma. For <$500, these lenses are worth it, imo. I'll have a much harder time justifying buying the 17-55 in the future than I will the 70-200.

[badpickev]

i have the newer hsm sigma. the ca was a lot worse than my 18-125. that was shocking to me.

[Tom Swaman]

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

[MagicNikon]

Originally Posted by Tom Swaman

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.

[cyclohexane]

I think I'm sticking to my 17-35mm AF-S for now.

Originally Posted by badpickev

i have the newer hsm sigma. the ca was a lot worse than my 18-125. that was shocking to me.

Hey Kev, got any images from the lens?

[Tom Swaman]

Josh,

As the saying goes, I've been there and done that. My copy, fortunately, is absolutely excellent. In fact, I really will not be needing this as soon as I get the new 24-70mm, but I decided to keep this because it is incredibly sharp and uniform across the field.

This is kind of funny/sad. I did not post anything in the other current forum about the 20mm prime. I owned that lens when I shot film and I had a mediocre copy, at best. I am now at the stage where if I even smell glass, I test it before I take a second whiff.

Tom

[MagicNikon]

Originally Posted by Tom Swaman

I am now at the stage where if I even smell glass, I test it before I take a second whiff.

Tom

Probably a very good practice. What does rotten glass smell like?

[badpickev]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

I think I'm sticking to my 17-35mm AF-S for now.



Hey Kev, got any images from the lens?

which one, the 18-125 or the 18-50?

[cyclohexane]

18-50