What do people think of Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF

AndyEllis

What do people think of this lens Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF ?

PB_PM

The Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 has a very good reputation for image quality.

JJ_SO

I don't like zoom lenses with rotating focus rings or with focus rings, that go in 1/6 of a full turn from closest distance to infinity. It's just difficult to focus them manually. My first lens for the D7000 was a similar Sigma, very sharp and when I looked a some hasty test shots with the more expensive Nikon 17-55 it was hard to find the Nikon worth the double price tag. Nowadays I'd see it a bit different although I still find the Nikon a steep price.

On my (long ago sold) Pentax I had some troubles with such a Tamron, but that was 4-5 years ago. And it was not clear, which of the the problems were caused by the lens and which by the bodies.

kanuck

Be warned if you purchase Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina lenses and then decide to upgrade to say a 24-70mm Nikkor in the future, the resale value of these third party lens companies is quite poor. For example if you pay $750 for a nice 11-16mm Tokina, the trade in value would only be $250 or $300. The Tamron you mentioned sells for $375 used, but is $650 new. Always try to purchase a Nikkor if you can. I know the price differences make that a challenge though, and the optics on third party lenses can be quite good.

tcole1983

The Nikon 17-55 can be had for sub $1000 used now fairly easy. I tried this lens along with the sigma version when I was looking. I really thought the tamron felt the cheapest to me and least refined. The sigma I thought focused faster and was better built. I have heard positive things about the tamron though. I still question the quality control of the third parties.

spraynpray

" if you pay $750 for a nice 11-16mm Tokina, the trade in value would only be $250 or $300. "

Whoa there kanuck - check out eBay. You can beat that price easily if you have boxes etc. and the lens is mint - very easily. If you could pick them up for those prices I would have got one used instead of new.

EDIT: I just checked and the second hand ones are over 2/3rds the new price with time to go and lately it all happens in the last few minutes/seconds.

TaoTeJared

What do people think of this lens Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF ?

I have used it and the VC version a good handful of times for multiple days for work and fun. I think it is a great option and at the current price (around $350?) is worth it. The only lens in that range that is better is Nikon's 17-55 but it is $700 more. The Tamron really is a nice lens.

Personally I didn't like the VC version only because it took about 1 sec for the VC to kick in but that was it. If you have to shoot quick it can cause some wild misses. Maybe if you used it all the time you could get use to it but I never did and I probably shot a good 1000 images with one. If you are never in that much of a hurry, the VC does work well - maybe 1-2.5 stops. Some claimed some sharpness difference between the two, I never saw any difference at all.

AndyEllis

Thanks for the comments, looks like i will have to invest in this lens

Ironheart

@TTJ at the expense of running down the battery a bit quicker, there is usually a setting (meter on time, or a different focus mode) that will keep the VR (err VC) spun up? Just a thought.

TaoTeJared

There is zero concern with battery for 99.999% of shooting situations. VR & VC etc to keep spun up, doesn't make any logical since if you think about it. Imagine a two body situation, where one is hanging on your side trying to compensate for swinging at your side non-stop. It would ware the lens motors out. The VC is not attache to the meter or AF, it just compensates movement of the lens.

JJ_SO

But for that it needs energy, doesn't it? I got the impression, using the VR a lot shortens battery time.

soap

Do any lenses let you spin up the VR when meter is off? If so I could benchmark on my tethered rig.

TaoTeJared

With batteries as they are today it's so little it doesn't make a difference. Your LCD will use more energy than that would.

VR is not connected to the meter or any other camera operation that I know of other than the shutter being pressed.

PB_PM

VR will also turn on if you depress the preview button, but like the shutter button that will also activate the meter. Thus there is no way to independently test the effect of VR on battery life.

JJ_SO

Why not? Just shoot without VR and see how long battery last, afterwards shoot with VR on and then subtract the second frame count from the first. Or use live view until the battery gives up and afterwards use live view with switched-on VR. After finding somebody, who carries the stuff around for a couple of hours 3:-O I could fix the cam with a gorillapod to a cow, but if it turns out, she's taking the better pictures, I'd be doomed.

But who cares? Spare batteries are always with us, aren't they?

PB_PM

Spare batteries a fine to a point, unless you cannot recharge them.

TaoTeJared

Why not? Just shoot without VR and see how long battery last, afterwards shoot with VR on and then subtract the second frame count from the first. O

JJ_SO - the results will be probably less than 50 shot difference on a battery that lasts 1000 shots. It will make make no difference.

JJ_SO

I was kidding and hoped the cam on the cow-horns would have made that clear

kyoshinikon

Optically it is good... Build is meh! A used 17-55mm f/2.8 nikkor van be had for $900...