Help Me Choose - Tamron 17-50/2.8 Non VC or Nikon 17-55/2.8.

[Remorhaz]

I'm currently looking for a fast short zoom for my Nikon D90 camera.

I'm essentially looking for something to replace using my slow 18-200mm lens when shooting things like:
- indoors low light photography (e.g. school events)
- general walkaround use (especially when photographing the kids, candid portraits, etc) - maybe the lens to leave on the camera when I don't have a specific photographic thing in mind
- sea/landscapes (I'd probably invest in something like a 0.9ND and 0.9GND which I could use with this lens - I also just ordered some step-up rings (e.g. 62-72, 67-77, 72-77, etc) so I'd probably be able to standardise on 77mm fixed filters in future? (BTW I have a 72mm Hoya HD CPL already). My current UWA - the Sigma 8-16mm whilst being uber wide has a very bulbous front element, built in non removable petal hood and no front thread so kinda precludes filters - I'm however wondering if handholding a 100x150 lee GND filter in front would work or not - anyone know if this is feasible?)

I tend to like using shallow depth of field a lot when shooting people, etc (which is partially why I so love my 50/1.4 - but using that lens indoors can get pretty restrictive and even for group shots of children outdoors it can require me to go back a very long way). I also want to use something sharper than my 18-200 (not hard I know!).

So here is the rub...
- I could get the Nikon 17-55/2.8 (77mm thread 755g) for about AUD$2000 for Aus stock or probably as low as AUD$1350 grey market delivered or even about AUD$900-$1000 used if I can find one.
- or I could get the Tamron 17-50/2.8 Non VC (67mm thread 434g) brand new for AUD$340 grey market delivered which is about a third of the used Nikon or a quarter of the new Nikon
- Note: whilst the Sigma 17-50/2.8 is an option - even grey it would be $650 delivered and thus almost twice the price of the Tamron

Obviously the Nikon is arguably better - better build, possibly better IQ, faster and more reliable focusing (esp in low light)?, slightly longer - but it is at least 3 times better!??

So at the moment I'm leaning towards the Tamron (I have the Tamron 90mm macro and am very happy the lens - sharpness and IQ is great - getting that lens is the reason I branched out into further lenses after my 18-200 (which until I got the Tamron 90mm I was fully happy with until I had something better IQ wise to compare with - unfortunately ).

[aim54x]

I vote the Tamron if you have plans to go to FX in the future, it is pretty darn close to the Nikkor in terms of performance. Been using my copy (A16N without in built motor) for almost 3yrs and it has not skipped a beat.

[bigsarg7]

I Picked myself up a nice Tamron around 2 months back, and I love it, mind you mine is the Tamron AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD. I to find myself shooting a lot of candids and portraits and I do weddings too, and I use this lens probably 80% of the time, When wide open its an excellent lens and I got mine second hand for less then $300 and as i said its nearly always on my d200! The tamron are a lot lighter due to being more plasticy (my word for a lot plastic) but if your after something more solid feeling go the Nikkor, but you'd be pretty happy with a Tamron IMO. -Not that it holds too much weight!
Eventually I'll get my Nikkor equivelent but in due time and until then I'll keep using what I have and it suits me fine at the moment!

[surenj]

Another vote for the Tammy.

Pros.
1. Nice build
2. lightweight
3. Nice IQ even wide open
4. Insignificant CA
5. Mild distortion only
6. PRICE

Cons
1. Smaller filter size so might need adaptor rings
2. LOUD focusing motor
3. Manual focus ring is small
4. NO autofocus override
5. Extends during zoom (Does the nikon do that?)

[gstark]

Rod,

None of the above.

when shooting things like:
- indoors low light photography (e.g. school events)
- general walkaround use

Grab a couple of fast primes. You won't regret it.

[Geoff M]

I went through the same thought process myself recently (also shooting with a D90), and opted for the Nikkor in the end as a good used example came up through this forum. I have been very impressed with the quality of bulid, sharpness, colour rendition etc, etc. Yes it is more expensive but I have no regrets in making the purchase.

I was so having the same questions for a longer focal length (70-200) ie third party v's Nikon and have just picked up a immaculate Nikkor 70-200 f2.8VR again cost is more than a new thrid party lens but in my view worth it. My belief Nikkor hold their value better too. Should I decide to sell in the future I reckon I would be able to sell for very near to what I have paid for used equipment. Something else worth considering in the thought process.

Only you can make the final decision, but which ever way you go you should be happy. Incidently, I moved to the two lenses mentioned after upgrading from the 18-200, the only downside is the size/weight increase especially for travel. Good luck in your decision making!

[biggerry]

Another vote for the Tammy.
5. Extends during zoom (Does the nikon do that?)

yep.

better build, possibly better IQ, faster and more reliable focusing (esp in low light)?, slightly longer - but it is at least 3 times better!??

my opinion is fairly biased since I own the nikkor, I have used Camerons tamron on his body sometime ago, given the cost of teh Tamron, that alone is a fairly large governing factor in the decision! at less than 1/4 the price of the nikkor one has to question whether the nikkor is worth the extra - as mentioned is it 3 time better? I don't think I actually know the answer to this..

however for me, the tamron did not enter into teh equation, mainly due to the fact I had felt the nikkor and at the time convinced it was a better item. I guess the three biggest factors for me are build quality, sharpness and focus speed (not so much focus since I primarily bought it to do landscapes but later on found it to be a good people lens and general purpose lens). The build quality is up there with some of the older nikkors I own, metal body has a really solid feel - this lens has taken some good hard wear from me and is has not faulted yet, hence this was particularly important to me, the weight is heavy but this did not concern me too much.

Anyway interesting discussion, will be good to see comments!

[Remorhaz]

Grab a couple of fast primes. You won't regret it.

Don't get me wrong - I love my fast primes - my 50/1.4 is practically my current goto lens (esp for indoors low light). However a 75mm equiv lens indoors or even outside when I'm moving around the stage or with a large group of children (sometimes 10, 20 or 50 or more) doesn't really allow any group shots. I don't however always have the option of changing back and forth between lenses at these types of things - thus the lure of something that can go a little wide to a little tele.

Cons
1. Smaller filter size so might need adaptor rings
2. LOUD focusing motor
3. Manual focus ring is small
4. NO autofocus override

The size/weight doesn't really bother me - either the Nikon or the Tamron - I chose this enormous 50mm lens (esp compared to my old 50/1. which I'm entirely happy with

1. I just bought a set of adapter rings (and my 70-300mm has 67mm filter size as well)
2. A loud focusing motor sound doesn't bother me
3 & 4. At this point in my photographic journey (12 months in) I tend to use auto focus almost always anyway (even with my AF-S/USM lenses) - probably mostly because I'm taking lots of candid shots of lots of children and the activities they are involved with - I and they are moving about a lot and it happens fast and changes from second to second

The only thing really that would concern me would be lots of hunting auto focus - I don't need sports tracking but when I'm photographing something that isn't really moving (and I generally use selected single focus point - on the eye/face for instance) I want it to focus accurately and reasonably quickly.

I went through the same thought process myself recently (also shooting with a D90), and opted for the Nikkor in the end as a good used example came up through this forum. I have been very impressed with the quality of bulid, sharpness, colour rendition etc, etc. Yes it is more expensive but I have no regrets in making the purchase

Note: I'm not against getting the Nikon (and in fact would probably prefer it for many of the reasons highlighted) and I'd buy one second hand if I could find one 1) I could sort of trust was looked after and 2) for a reasonable price... anyone got or know of a 17-55 for sale