Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 vs Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC

[alanbreck]

I realize this has been hashed out before on these boards, and yes I searched through and read lots of good info on the Nikon lens, but not as much available on the Tamron. I have handled and shot (in the camera store) with the Tamron and while it is nice, it does seem a bit slower in the auto-focus than other Nikon's I've used. I have read many of the reviews, and most all agree that if price were the same the Nikon would be the best.

That being the case, I have a chance to buy the Nikon for between $800-$900 from someone I know and figured I'd ask your opinions. The only thing keeping the Nikon from being a no-brainer is the fact that the Tamron has VC, which is worth a few stops as mentioned in other posts/reviews. But I do have a very steady hand (no shakes) and have never had a problem with this on my old 35mm SLR (I am new to DSLR's) even with a 200mm lens. Of course I was never able to shoot in as low light as what these lenses will shoot, so...

If ya'll were in my shoes, which would it be?

[Douglas]

Tamron also has a non Vr lens. You might want to see if you can test them. Get one of each, specifically the 17-55 you can pick up cheaper, and do a couple test shots. See how they look at 100% for sharpness and all that sort of thing. Also, how big an issue is slow focusing? If you shoot sports, like say basketball, then a slow focus could mean missing that great shot.

[alanbreck]

Originally Posted by Douglas

Also, how big an issue is slow focusing? If you shoot sports, like say basketball, then a slow focus could mean missing that great shot.

Kids in action, which is about the same as sports, so yes...quick focusing is an issue. I know I will choose between one of these two lenses, so the question is, if you were in my shoes, which one and why?

[Douglas]

Based on what you said, kids in action and already feeling the tamron is slow, go for the Nikon if its in your budget.

[AtlPikMan]

If the money isnt an issue then theres no question to ask...Nikon all the way. Now, if you want some pocket money saved the Tamron isnt that bad of a lens. I have the 17-50 (Built In Motor) Version. Its Sharp and Produces Good Colors. The Focus is good. I cant compare it to the 17-55, I dont have one. I will say sometimes it hunts for focus in dark areas or when trying to focus on a specific subject with similar colors.

[alanbreck]

Originally Posted by AtlPikMan

If the money isnt an issue then theres no question to ask...Nikon all the way. Now, if you want some pocket money saved the Tamron isnt that bad of a lens. I have the 17-50 (Built In Motor) Version. Its Sharp and Produces Good Colors. The Focus is good. I cant compare it to the 17-55, I dont have one. I will say sometimes it hunts for focus in dark areas or when trying to focus on a specific subject with similar colors.

The price for the Tamron 17-50mm with VC is about $650 after rebate, so between $150-$250 less than I can get the Nikon for. If the Nikon is that much clearer, I'd rather spend the extra money. And besides, it beats shelling out almost $1400 for the Nikon new!
-Jim

[AtlPikMan]

Originally Posted by alanbreck

The price for the Tamron 17-50mm with VC is about $650 after rebate, so between $150-$250 less than I can get the Nikon for. If the Nikon is that much clearer, I'd rather spend the extra money. And besides, it beats shelling out almost $1400 for the Nikon new!
-Jim

WOW! Didnt know the New Tamron VC was that much. Well, I guess you have your answer. Go Nikon!

[Douglas]

Yeah. For $150 go Nikon

[cyclohexane]

For the Nikon, you're paying mostly for the improvement in construction quality, with some optical improvement.

For only $150 though, get the Nikon.

[Joves]

Yep you need the Nikon the Tamron will be too slow for what you are shooting. Fact is all of the Tamrons are slower. I know I have the 28-300 and, I hear elevator music when I push to focus.

[Bonner]

Nikon...the only lens I used for a month of traveling in Europe last summer on the D300!


Nikon D300 ,Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX


Nikon D300 ,Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX


Nikon D300 ,Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX
1/80s f/3.2 at 45.0mm iso3200 full exif

[Douglas]

Someday, I have to get either the Nikon 17-55 or Tamron 17-50 (non-vr) lens. Both work for what I do. I need speed, I just need good images and a 2.8

[AtlPikMan]

Originally Posted by Douglas

Someday, I have to get either the Nikon 17-55 or Tamron 17-50 (non-vr) lens. Both work for what I do. I need speed, I just need good images and a 2.8

Yup, thats why the Tammy suites me so well.

[Dirk]

Well i don't have the 17-55 f2.8 yet but probably thake the non vr from tamron as i have seen some great shots of AtlPikMan (kent) where i am now is nowhere near his shots yet ( Kent i still feel your car shots Asome )

what is tamron thinking +1ooo bucks extra only for the VC??

really i need VC/IS/VR since my hands tremble a bit , it has nothing to do with age just a small handicap .

I tink you must buy what you feel happy with , call me weird but i see no problem to use even tamron lenses on nikon or canon ..

but to come back to the thread i certainly hope that in due time the prices will fall if God will give me time to wait

[alanbreck]

Well, I bought the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 for $800, and it was the best $800 worth of camera hardware I have bought to date. I now know why this lens costs $1400...it's worth it! I'll post some pictures when I get a chance.