Looking for feedback on Tamron 17-75 vs Tamron 17-50?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by kirchnel, Jul 16, 2007.

  1. kirchnel

    kirchnel

    306
    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern NJ
    Looking for faster glass than I currently own. These are in my budget? Has anyone used either?
     
  2. I just got the Tamron 17-50, and so far I think it is great. Very sharp, very fast. For the price of the Nikon 17-55, I got this Tamron and the Nikon 180mm f/2.8.

    Craig
     
  3. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    is there such a lens......17-75 ???
     
  4. Do you mean sigma 17-70?

    I have the Tamron and it is a good lens. It would be a good compliment to your 50-150 Sigma. Just ensure you get a good copy.
     
  5. smodak

    smodak

    Jun 11, 2007
    Franklin MA US
    I think he means Tamron 28-75

    Both are good if you get a decent copy
     
  6. kirchnel

    kirchnel

    306
    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern NJ
    Sorry -- typo on my post. I do mean the Tamron 28-75. Trying to decide whether to get the further reach or go for the 17-50 which so many people rave about.
    I have the nikon 18-70 but I wanted the faster glass for indoor available light shooting.
    p.s. I am a she not a he. Picture is on my grandson, ryan.
     
  7. How often do you find yourself in between 18-27 on your other lenses that can do this focal length?

    I don't find myself wanting more than 50mm indoors in most cases. Unless you are talking about plays or sports.
     
  8. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    The Tamron 17-50 has great AF speed, it beats my old 18-70DX kit as its brighter but on my D80 still focuses just as fast.

    Personally I prefer the extra width to length and the 17-50 is incredibly sharp.
     
  9. Lynda,

    From your lens listing, it looks like the only place you don't have f/2.8 is at 25mm-49mm. It seems like adding either the 17-50 the 28-75 would give you a lot of focal length overlap with your lenses. Do you plan on getting rid of some of the other zooms? If not, then perhaps a Sigma 30 1.4 or a Nikon 35 2 might be a good fit.
     
  10. kirchnel

    kirchnel

    306
    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern NJ
    Glenn
    I love the faster glass (as you can see). I take mostly photos of family/friends -- sort of photojournalistic style. Although I realize the focal length overlap -- adding the tamron will give me faster glass within that length. I am leaning towards the 28-75 because I think that is where I usually wind up.
    The 50-150 sigma while fast and I am happy with -- is a more clumsy lens for everyday type stuff.
    I just have read so much about the 17-50 but I am able to purchase the 28-75 at a very very good price.
    therefore, the dilemma!
     
  11. rassi618

    rassi618

    51
    Jul 7, 2007
    Oregon
    I've got the 28-75, and for candid pictures of family and friends, the extra FL is great for being able to stay out of sight.
     
  12. davidzvi

    davidzvi

    Apr 30, 2005
    Massachusetts
    David
    Scan your images, how many taken with the 18-70 or 18-200 are under 28mm? Or how many times when using the 24-120 is it just not wide enough?

    If the answer is not offen enough that changing to your 12-24 is not an issue then get the 28-75.

    Then do the same for the 50-70 range.
     
  13. Hi Lynda:

    I took the first 7 pages of this gallery with the 28-75, until the romantic two-lovers shot under the tree. The only thing you could notice (as if it was like mine, could be a very slight reddish cast, that sometimes it's even pleasant with portraits)

    Here's the link: http://italy74.smugmug.com/gallery/3146333

    With mine, I had no problems, I find it sharp and very good for the price. Of course I don't expect the "bulk" of my 17-35 just to give you an example. As other said, if you can find a good copy is an excellent lens.

    Somewhere else I said that I'd like some kind of DX lens 16-90 (equivalent to the old 24-135 excursion) but til now I'm managing quite well one lens or the other
     
  14. kirchnel

    kirchnel

    306
    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern NJ
    sounds like I am leaning the right way.
     
  15. kirchnel

    kirchnel

    306
    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern NJ
    David,
    I hardly ever use my 18-70 or 18-200. The Tamron 18-200 was a lens when my camera was new that my husband bought me. I have never been that found of it, I think the images tend to be a little soft and it is slow.
    I use the 18-70 once in a while, preferring instead the speed and ease of the 50 1.4.
    The 24-120 I use on outdoor outings as it is way too slow for indoors.
    I just got the 12-24 and will probably enjoy that a little more cause of the fast glass.
    Eventually, my wish list includes the Nikon 17-55 which would solve alot of decisions but til then . . .
     
  16. kirchnel

    kirchnel

    306
    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern NJ
    Dino
    Thank you so much for the link -- like they say " a picture is worth a thousand words"
    It helped make my decision and I went for the Tamron 28-75. I said earlier than my Tamron lens 18-200 is not one of my favorite lenses but I thought with the faster aperature I would give it another chance. I hope it is a sharp copy (like yours)
    Italy looks great! One of the other things on my wish list!
    ciao!
     
  17. davidzvi

    davidzvi

    Apr 30, 2005
    Massachusetts
    David
    Not really, then it is between the 17-55 and 28-70. Its the same choice you have now, just a different price point.:wink:
     
  18. Tamron 17-50, you will not regret it. I love mine!

    Tim
     
  19. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    Tim, I had a Tamron 17-50/2.8 before and it has the "flash" problem. Do you have problems with yours? I am not sure if this is a sample variation issue. I would love to try my luck again. :)
     
  20. rvink

    rvink

    Mar 21, 2006
    New Zealand
    I think that's a good choice. My wife uses a D50 with a Nikon AF 28-70/3.5-4.5 (42-105 equiv) for family shots. Although this zoom range is often described as "uninteresting" on the DX format, it's a good range for people. A wider lens would make people look "stretched" at the edges of the picture, and give them big noses for tight shots - 28mm is wide enough for out needs. Going to 70mm is a good length for portraits - the Tamron 28-75 even gives you a little extra reach. Another advantage of the 28-75 is that it is "full frame" so can be used on film cameras or the full frame digital (if/when it appears).
     
Loading...