But, the Nikon lens costs about $1400. Luckily, my friend told me to look at third party manufacturers like Tamron, Sigma and Tokina. At first I was iffy, because my dad has a Tamron 28-200mm and the quality is complete crap. Tamron has the 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma has the 18-50 f/2.8 ($490 or $620 with HSM) and Tokina has the 16-50 f/2.8 ($750). I did some research and figured the Tamron would be best for me because it was the cheapest at $430, and it got pretty good scores.
I'm proud to say that I am happy with my purchase, and happy that I saved $1000 to buy more lenses in the future.
First of all, let's go over all of the symbols in the name, so we know exactly what we are getting:
- SP - High Performance Specifications (basically, means it's in their pro line)
- AF - Auto Focus (unfortunately not AF-S, so a bit slower and louder)
- XR - Extra Refractive Index Glass
- Di II - Lenses for Digital SLR Cameras Only
- LD - Low Dispersion
- IF - Internal Focusing
Again, I'm not a pro lens reviewer, so take this review for what it's worth. I don't have much of a say on IQ, CA or MTF and won't have bar graphs with numbers. I will just say what I like or dislike about the lens. I've also had a chance to play with the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, and I'll let you know my thoughts at the end of this review.
Size
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a very small lens. It's fairly light weight at 430g, and even smaller than the Nikon 18-200 both when zoomed in and zoomed out. The front glass element is fairly small with a thread size of 67mm. Like most wide angle zooms, the length of the lens changes when you zoom in or out. In this lenses case, the length increases as you zoom in, and the overall length increases by about 2 inches. The lens comes with a fairly small petal shaped hood, which moves with the front element of the lens.
Build Quality
This lens is really light weight, and good for if you want to travel light. It's not particularly sturdy, and it seems very plasticky. However, I do not plan on going to African Deserts, or Antartica like places, so the build is right for me. Afterall, I only have a Nikon D80, which isn't weather sealed to begin with. The D80 plus this lens size up very nicely together. Furhtermore, the zoom ring, and focus ring are very smooth and have a bit of dampening. The rubber around these rings are also tight, and not loose. There is also a zoom lock to prevent the lens from zooming when you don't want it to, such as zoom creep. However, this lens is fairly tight. My copy doesn't zoom creep at all. I wish they had the zoom lock on my 18-200.
Image Quality
I did notice a fair bit of Vignetting when wide open (f/2.8). However, I'm very pleased with the image quality. I found that the pictures I took were sharp. I didn't notice much CA during my recent forest hike.
Auto Focus
This camera does not have HSM or SWM, meaning that it does not have AF-S. The focusing is fairly loud, and not as fast. The Sigma version, the 18-50 f/2.8, has an HSM version which costs another $200.
Versus the Nikon
Honestly, I had no clue how big the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 was. It is massive when compared to this 17-55. Sure it offers 5 more mm on the long end, and it has AF-S, but it is ginormous. If you wanted to travel light, I'd say go with the third-party lenses. I believe the Tamron is the smallest of the bunch. But, when it comes to build quality, obviously the Nikon surpasses the Tamron, as it seems like the Nikon is built like a tank.
But, one other thing I was a bit shocked about was the minimum focusing distance. I did a test with my Tamron, and found that I could focus in on an object from about 10" from the sensor. From the front of the lens to the object (no hood), I measured the MFD to be 4" at 50mm, and about 6" at 17mm. I'd say that is very good, as I like to get inclose shots. From what I can remember on the Nikon, the front of the lens had to be at least 10" away from the object, meaning that the actual sensor was probably about 18" away as the lens is a lot longer.
I'm glad I saved the $1000. Being an amateur photographer, I'm happy with my choice. The size, weight, MFD, and aperture is a great deal. I'm sure the Nikon has better IQ, and build quality, but at the moment I can't justify the extra $1000.
Final Thoughts
I fully recommend this lens for those who want to travel light (430g vs 755g), and want the large aperture. The focal length is great for taking pictures of the scenery and landscapes. At a price of $430, it really can't be beat.
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
