Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens
 

Looking to purchase this lens to use for day to day photography mainly. Any opinions? Have you guys used this lens?

I currently am using the stock 18-55mm on my Nikon.

I used it for a week for a vacation. It's definitely a good travel lens for non-fullframe cameras. Sharpness and everything is very good and basically like the Tamron 28-75mm. The only thing bad is that the focusing isn't that fast and hunts in low light.

Compared to your 18-55mm, you'll get better image quality and be able to use faster shutter speed at low light situations. You can also get blurry backgrounds easier.

would a Sigma 18-200MM F3.5-6.3 DC LENS be a better option for me? It seems to be more versatile

The Sigma would be more versatile but you would be scarficing image quality vs the Tamron.

you'd also be sacrificing a LOT of low-light photo opportunities. The Sigma 18-200 will most likely be at f4.5 or 5.0 @ 50mm vs. the 2.8 of the Tammy.

I have the Tamron 18-50 and love it. It takes beautiful pictures, and it's a great all-around lens. Like someone said before, it sucks at low-light focusing...it hunts and then usually gives up lol. It's also noisy...sounds like a freaking sewing machine half the time...but, if you can live with that you won't regret buying the lens (I'm very happy with mine, despite it not being perfect). For the money I doubt you can find a better zoom.

hi offroad.. where did you get your tamron? i don't see much retailers carrying tamron at all here in bc... also what is a good price for this lens?

low-light photo opportunities are usually night time shots right?

yeah, night time or indoors :)

I got mine through sigma4less. I've had good experiences with them as well as B&H...if you want to buy local, I'm sure any photo store will have it (hell, even London Drugs can order it for you).

http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/pho/747858814.html

$350 is not bad of a price. I believe they go for $499 new. I'd consider it but I'm saving up for a 70-200.

thats a good deal!
i got mine for 400 last month off some guy
loving it so far. Really good lens!

Niceee... that's a sweet deal. I will try to contact that dude.

This lens is sweet.. been wanting to get it for a while now.. but i don't use my camera enough to be buying lenses for it =/

How good is this wide open? I've got the 17-40L...but I find that f4.0...well, I like fast apertures.

i believe this lens is F2.4 on all zoom ranges... clarity should be really good for this especially on closer range photographs...

Is Tamron or Sigma a better brand for this lens?

It's a 2.8 on all zoom ranges, however, I doubt it would be sharp wide open. Probably sharp at F4, which is probably the same as your 17-40L. However, for the price, it can't be beat, I'd say it's the sharpest mid zoom available under $1000. I'm tempted to get that lens off CL, but I'll just have to make due with my 30 and 50 prime.

The Tamron is said to be better optically than the Sigma, however, the Sigma is available in HSM.

Nikon Mounts:

Tamron:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-n...report--review

Sigma:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-n...ab-test-report

Their verdict:
The Sigma offers lots of bangs for your bucks but the comparable Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP seems to be a better alternative.

any other lens you guys suggest for a starter? Looking more to get sharper image than long range..

theres nothing else at this price

I'd consider the sigma for it's HSM. I think it would be more useful for you than the slightly better image quality of the tamron.

why would you doubt it's sharp wide open? no offence, but I hate it when ppl just make stuff up...one day when I'm not stupid busy I'll take a few shots and post them so you can really decide :)

i own a 17-50mm f2.8 for a canon and i love it to death. its a good walk around and indoor lens. It definitely is not soft when wide open, a drawback to the lens is that it has high CA.

if you are looking for alternatives, you can grab sigma's 24-70 f2.8. Its a little poorer in relation to MTF 50 values BUT it definitely is more versatile than the 17-50.

it really all comes down to what you need. do you need a 17 (25.5mm) or would you enjoy more of the 24 (36mm)? both lenses are great! the great thing about the sigma is that it has HSM. the motor on the tamron really bothers me. i dont know why it does, but it does bother me.

when you say High CA, what do you mean?

CA is chromatic aberrations; a color shadow usually found when there is a high contrast transition such as the contrast of black and white. The color shadows are usually represented by what we call purple fringing. I can't really explain it well, but someone here can definitely explain it better.

17-44mm 2.8 Nikon is probably the sharpest of them all if u can afford it of course

ooops typo 17-55 dat is ....

No, the 14-24 is the sharpest WA zoom out there now by a HUGE margin.

You're right the 14-24mm is sharper but I was referring to the range he's looking into ...