Bought the Tamron 17-55 2.8!! Time to upgrade my lenses for my Nikon!!

[ProfJohn]

Am close to selling my old D70s and when it goes so does my awesome 18-70mm Nikon lens.

So now I need a replacement for that range. Am figuring to get me a 2.8.

Any suggestions?

Am thinking the $500 range and used it not out of the question as long as it is from a known dealers such as BHphoto or adorama.

Suggest away

update!
Bought the Tamron 17-50 2.8!!

Very exciting
Based on what I read it seemed to be the best alternative to the Nikon lens in that range.
Cost me $500ish

I am thinking my next lens will be the 85mm 1.8 prime or perhaps the 105 prime.

 

[ElFenix]

nothing fully covers that range at a constant f/2.8 in one lens. the best lens anywhere near your price range that's constant f/2.8 is probably the new tamron 17-50 VC. the older one without VC can be had new for just inside your price range or for under $400 used on adorama right now. KEH doesn't seem to have any used. KEH does have the sigma 18-50 used, but i don't think it's as well-regarded optically.

if you survey your photos and find yourself at the long end of that range all the time you may want to look at the sigma 24-70 or tamron 28-75. the tamron is very good on crop bodies but obviously sacrifices any semblance of a wide angle. the sigma will get you ~36, which is close enough to 35.

the other lens to consider is the tokina 16-50. it shares its optical design with the pentax 16-50, and so you could look at those reviews as well. it's a bit more difficult to find.

if you don't need f/2.8 constant, there is the new sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS HSM. you'll get the range you want with stabilization. $450 on amazon. some people on dpreview have reported it shipped.

 

[ZetaEpyon]

What other lenses do you have already? Just the 18-70?

 

[twistedlogic]

if you don't need f/2.8 constant, there is the new sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS HSM. you'll get the range you want with stabilization. $450 on amazon. some people on dpreview have reported it shipped.

Funny you should suggest this one.

From another post:

Ummm why pay $450 for that Sigma lens when it isn't even 2.8 through its entire range??

At that price you could buy a used true 2.8 and probably end up with better pictures.

As ElFenix points out, that range + OS is not available in a 2.8 lens. Interesting lens, how are the reviews on it?

What other lenses do you have already? Just the 18-70?

He also owns a 50 1.8, AFAIK.

+1 for the Tamrons. Great optics.

BTW ProfJohn, are you sticking with DX? Plan on moving to FX at anytime?

 

[u3laptoper]

In the photographic world,

it's a sin not to own at least "one" good lens. Preferably primes. Zooms will never be the same grade.

 

[ProfJohn]

I own:
Nikon 50mm 1.8
Tokina 12-24 f4
Sigma 170-500

Am going to get a 70-200 or 80-200 2.8 some time in the spring before soccer season starts.

 

[ElFenix]

watch this thread for sample pics on the 17-70 later today

 

[BeauJangles]

In the photographic world,

it's a sin not to own at least "one" good lens. Preferably primes. Zooms will never be the same grade.

Meh, I tend to disagree. Primes are pretty awesome, but the top-quality zooms these days are almost identical through most ranges. Unless shooting primes appeals to you on some deeper level, zoom lenses are in many cases more practical. That being said, I also think that shooting exclusively on zooms promotes laziness in composition, but in terms of quality high quality zooms and primes are pretty darn close these days.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I own:
Nikon 50mm 1.8
Tokina 12-24 f4
Sigma 170-500

Am going to get a 70-200 or 80-200 2.8 some time in the spring before soccer season starts.

I never really missed the 50-70mm range that I was lacking when I had the 17-50mm and 70-200mm combo. I think you'd be fine with a constant f/2.8 17-50mm. Having VC on it would be neat.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Meh, I tend to disagree. Primes are pretty awesome, but the top-quality zooms these days are almost identical through most ranges. Unless shooting primes appeals to you on some deeper level, zoom lenses are in many cases more practical. That being said, I also think that shooting exclusively on zooms promotes laziness in composition, but in terms of quality high quality zooms and primes are pretty darn close these days.

I think it completely depends on the individual lens. A consumer grade 17-70mm variable aperture lens isn't going to be nearly as sharp as a 50mm prime for the same money. You get more DOF control with the prime, lighter weight, better low light ability, and a sturdier lens whilst losing the zoom ability. But if you've got a Nikon 17-55mm, which is just as sharp as any prime I've shot with (I guess I have a REALLY good copy), then you needn't worry unless you want a prime for the weight, lower cost, and larger aperture.

As for Nikons, primes can easily beat the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses, which I think are really just ho-hum in sharpness. You Canon people are lucky to have that super sharp 70-200mm f/4 IS in your arsenal.

 

[BeauJangles]

I think it completely depends on the individual lens. A consumer grade 17-70mm variable aperture lens isn't going to be nearly as sharp as a 50mm prime for the same money. You get more DOF control with the prime, lighter weight, better low light ability, and a sturdier lens whilst losing the zoom ability. But if you've got a Nikon 17-55mm, which is just as sharp as any prime I've shot with (I guess I have a REALLY good copy), then you needn't worry unless you want a prime for the weight, lower cost, and larger aperture.

As for Nikons, primes can easily beat the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses, which I think are really just ho-hum in sharpness. You Canon people are lucky to have that super sharp 70-200mm f/4 IS in your arsenal.

Agreed 100%. If you want something that can keep up with primes, you've got to be prepared to drop a lot of money. Primes are certainly some of the least expensive, fastest, and sharpest lenses around, but I think lenses like the 17-55 which you have are a great example of a super-sharp zoom.

 

[ProfJohn]

Couple of quick samples from the Tamron 17-50 2.8
Nothing fancy.

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/79bVs4_9X4AAxHKjbMX8XA?feat=directlink
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/d3fN5t1stGs0iKo9NZawLw?feat=directlink
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/q_trWp0Vf9M22KmyaiS_Vg?feat=directlink
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7A9V7iWx6i4qSKlytRz1_g?feat=directlink

 

[ElFenix]

edit: potn thread comparing tamron 17-50 vc to canon 15-85 to sigma 17-70 OS. the tamron looks like a stellar lens. the sigma not so much. one of the posters thought it looked no better than the canon 18-55IS.

 

[spikespiegal]

I have the non VC Tamron on my Canon 20D, and am also a fanatic in terms of lens quality. From 28'ish-50mm the Tamron is flat out one of the best performing lenses I've ever used. At F4 on it easily keeps up with my Canon 50mm 1.4. At 5.6 it's a real terror on the longer end in terms of sharpness, and reviews are spot on in regards to this.

I'm less thrilled about the Tamron at the wide end. If you're a wide shooter and picky about image quality wider than 28mm, it's not so strong a lens. Then again few zoom lenses are in this range.

 

[foghorn67]

edit: potn thread comparing tamron 17-50 vc to canon 15-85 to sigma 17-70 OS. the tamron looks like a stellar lens. the sigma not so much. one of the posters thought it looked no better than the canon 18-55IS.

I have actually seen a couple of wicked sharp, freak 18-55IS lenses.

 

[randomlinh]

I have actually seen a couple of wicked sharp, freak 18-55IS lenses.

aren't there quite a bit, center sharp anyway?

I have the non VC as well. Tempted to upgrade, but not sure it's really worth it. I would have if they also had their own silent fast motor in there, in a heartbeat (assuming it was still ~$6/700).

 

[foghorn67]

aren't there quite a bit, center sharp anyway?

I have the non VC as well. Tempted to upgrade, but not sure it's really worth it. I would have if they also had their own silent fast motor in there, in a heartbeat (assuming it was still ~$6/700).

Misread your post. Ignore this one. (You already own the Tamron, just the non VC).