1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Tamron 17-50 or Nikon 18-55???

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by ScottS, Jul 12, 2007.

  1. ScottS


    Apr 21, 2006
    Birmingham, AL
    I know this is a loaded question but I need some opinions on whether or not I should buy the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or just stick with my Nikon 18-55? The reason I ask this question......I am going to Cancun & the Yucatan peninsula for my honeymoon the first week of September. We are definitely going to several of the Mayan ruin sites so I know that I need to go wide.

    Anyway, I have a D200 and my wife-to-be has a D50.

    Should I buy the Tamron (can't afford the Nikon 17-55) or just be happy with my Nikon 18-55?
  2. onemorelens


    Jul 3, 2007
    I have the Tamron 17-50 and it's very good but just for Cancun I'm not sure it will make much of a difference from the kit lens. I would imagine most of the shooting will be outside in bright sun and at f/8 or f/11 I think the IQ would be equally good. If you want more of an impact on Mayan pyramid images I would consider going wider with the Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20. Another consideration would be the 85/1.8 or 85/1.4 to take lovely portraits of your new bride.
  3. I don't think I'd bother going with 17-50 for your trip. Maybe see if you can get something wider like sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24. That is something that would be noticeable.
  4. weiran


    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    If you're doing landscapes and stopping down, then there will be no image quality difference. The best thing about the Tamron is its ability to shoot wide open.
  5. ScottS


    Apr 21, 2006
    Birmingham, AL
    Thanks for the advice fellas. I had thought about the Tokina 12-24 as well and will probably go that route. I was just looking for faster glass in the 17-55 range as we do a good bit of traveling and will have a future need more than just the honeymoon. I also wanted to limit the number of lens changes I might need.

    I currently have the Sigma 24-60 2.8 but that just isn't wide enough all of the time. I also have the Sigma 70-200 2.8, with Sigma 1.4x converter, for my long lens needs.
  6. 2nd that suggestion... took me a while to get an ultrawide for my DSLR, after I got it I regretted all those times before I had one (I do a lot of landscapes)
  7. Larlec


    Jun 18, 2007
    northern Colorado
    I think the 17-50 would be very nice for this type of trip and you'll have lots of situations where you'll want fairly fast glass (the jungle is quite dark, actually!) and that range is also good for people (lots of great faces in this part of the word) and other neat stuff you'll encounter. Take 'em both!
  8. How about a 12-24 and then add 50mm 1.8 just in case you need something fast?
  9. ScottS


    Apr 21, 2006
    Birmingham, AL
    Hi David -

    I actually have the following glass already:
    Sigma 24-60 2.8
    Sigma 70-200 2.8
    Nikon 50mm 1.8
    Nikon 85mm 1.8

    I thought about buying the 17-50 for the trip (because it is wider than my 24-60) and perhaps sell my 24-60 when I got back home. Instead, I think I'll just buy the Tokina 12-24 f4 and have it compliment my Sigma 24-60 2.8.

    I definitely plan to take the 50 & 85 1.8's with me.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2007
  10. Well with what you I would sell the 24-60 and get 12-24 and 28-75 Tamron.

    The 17-50 is wide enough for general use, but not as good for landscapes as the 12-24. And the Tamron 28-75 is considered by many to be a good less expensive alternative to the Beast.

    These 2 combined with what you already have would be a very good group of lenses.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.