Tamron 17-50mm to complement Nikon 70-30mm VR?

[pennylane]

I currently have a Nikon 70-300mm VR and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 for my Nikon D50.

I'm in need of a good walkaround lens (I get a telephoto first, yes, odd, I know). I wasn't sure what to get, and I'm still not sure. But the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 seems to get excellent reviews for a very good price. I'm tempted to get it as a walkaround lens, but I won't have the 50-70mm range. Will I really miss it? People have said "a few steps forward and back" is all I really need.

When using my 50mm f/1.8 I find that I miss wide angles more than telephotos (ie, I can always switch to the 70-300mm). I also get the feeling that anytime I want to zoom more than 50mm, I probably want to zoom to 70 or more. So it seems like I'd be okay without the 50-70mm range, but I do still lose it.

The other lens I was considering was the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-fsomething. The main advantage that one has is the macro, as well as the 50-70mm, but it seems to have inferior optics and build quality. I think I can live without macro (and if I wanted it, I might want a dedicated macro lens), but those are 2 distinct advantages.

Both seem "better" than the Nikon 18-70mm kit lens. And I don't want to get the Nikon 18-200mm VR because it's too much and I want a faster aperture.

Thanks for the help.

 

[tdawg]

The Nikon 18-70dx gets pretty strong reviews. Sure it's not a fixed f/2.8, but the f/3.5-4.5 is pretty decent given the price this can be had used. The other nice feature is that it's an AF-S lens, so it's quicker and quieter to AF.

The Tamron 17-50 looks like a nice lens and I too have heard rave reviews. The other one to consider is the Tamron 28-75, which has seen some great reviews during it's lifetime. Depends on how wide you want to get. I'm considering the 28-75 myself to replace the 28-70 I currently have, as I have the 12-24 for the wides.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

The Tamron 17-50mm is incredibly sharp, but the focusing motor is obnoxiously loud (somewhat high pitched sharp fast motor whir). Not good for quiet gatherings. Even worse when it has a hard time focusing.

I did a lot of shooting using my 17-50mm and 100-300mm. I did not have anything in the 50-100mm range except for a 1.4x teleconverter that I would rarely use. With the 1.4x TC, the 17-50mm becomes a 24-70mm f/4. I was very uncomfortable using this focal range because the wide end was simply not wide enough. There were very few times when I felt constrained by the 50mm end. I think you'll be ok with not having the 50-70mm range.

 

[ProfJohn]

The 18-70 that came with the d70s is a great lens. Gets great reviews from everyone, much better than the 18-55 that came with the d50.

 

[pennylane]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
The Tamron 17-50mm is incredibly sharp, but the focusing motor is obnoxiously loud (somewhat high pitched sharp fast motor whir). Not good for quiet gatherings. Even worse when it has a hard time focusing.

I did a lot of shooting using my 17-50mm and 100-300mm. I did not have anything in the 50-100mm range except for a 1.4x teleconverter that I would rarely use. With the 1.4x TC, the 17-50mm becomes a 24-70mm f/4. I was very uncomfortable using this focal range because the wide end was simply not wide enough. There were very few times when I felt constrained by the 50mm end. I think you'll be ok with not having the 50-70mm range.

Hello fuzzybabybunny,

Yeah, I eventually decided against the 18-200mm. The range is great, but it's a bit too expensive and I don't think I'd mind switching around, for now . It seems like I'd get better images and more range.

How loud is obnoxiously loud? As loud as the shutter when you snap a shot? Have you ever had issues with it being too loud for a situation you've been in?

Thanks.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: fanerman91

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
The Tamron 17-50mm is incredibly sharp, but the focusing motor is obnoxiously loud (somewhat high pitched sharp fast motor whir). Not good for quiet gatherings. Even worse when it has a hard time focusing.

I did a lot of shooting using my 17-50mm and 100-300mm. I did not have anything in the 50-100mm range except for a 1.4x teleconverter that I would rarely use. With the 1.4x TC, the 17-50mm becomes a 24-70mm f/4. I was very uncomfortable using this focal range because the wide end was simply not wide enough. There were very few times when I felt constrained by the 50mm end. I think you'll be ok with not having the 50-70mm range.

Hello fuzzybabybunny,

Yeah, I eventually decided against the 18-200mm. The range is great, but it's a bit too expensive and I don't think I'd mind switching around, for now . It seems like I'd get better images and more range.

How loud is obnoxiously loud? As loud as the shutter when you snap a shot? Have you ever had issues with it being too loud for a situation you've been in?

Thanks.

Ehhhh... it's kind of hard to compare it to a shutter sound because they're different kinds of sounds, and different cameras make different kinds of shutter sounds to boot.

I guess it's kind of like those small toy wind-up cars. The same kind of high pitched whirring sound. As for loudness, I've definitely had people look at me when I autofocus with the lens, which makes me cringe. It shouldn't be a deal breaker though unless you routinely take pictures during moments of silence or in really quiet places.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: fanerman91
I'm tempted to get it as a walkaround lens, but I won't have the 50-70mm range. Will I really miss it? People have said "a few steps forward and back" is all I really need.

I have a gap from 55mm to 85mm. I've never felt the need to have something in between to fill.

Originally posted by: fanerman91
The other lens I was considering was the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-fsomething. The main advantage that one has is the macro, as well as the 50-70mm, but it seems to have inferior optics and build quality. I think I can live without macro (and if I wanted it, I might want a dedicated macro lens), but those are 2 distinct advantages.

I haven't used the Sigma or the Tamron so I don't know how they compare. Generally speaking though the smaller the range, the easier the optical formula is.

Originally posted by: fanerman91
Both seem "better" than the Nikon 18-70mm kit lens. And I don't want to get the Nikon 18-200mm VR because it's too much and I want a faster aperture.

Thanks for the help.

I liked the Nikon kit lens - it's not a bad lens. Personally, I decided to wait until I had enough to get the 17-55/2.8 because everything else just looked like an incremental upgrade.

 

[Triumph]

I love my 17-50 f/2.8. Great walk around lens, fast, and sharp. The only thing that I don't like is that it tends to be a bit too contrasty, so I've toned that down 1 step in the in-camera settings. It also feels pretty solid. It's hard to take a bad picture with this lens. I've never had a problem with the noise, I don't think it's that bad, plus I really don't care about having a quiet lens. That just isn't something that's important to me.

 

[Jawo]

Thats the exact setup that I have, but for a Canon. Once I found a sharp 17-50 I love it! I have a gap between 50-70, but its hard to cover without compromising IQ and distortion. I looked at the Sigma 18-70, but its f/2.8-4.5!

 

[kalster]

i like the tamron 17-50, its pretty sharp, i find the build pretty good too, focus is a bit noisy and hunts in low light, but i can live with that

 

[pennylane]

Thanks for the replies. I think I'll be able to deal with the noisy focusing. I'm gonna go for it.