What ~17-50mm Lens On Crop Body

hdcm · 11th July 2010, 2:55 PM

Hi Fellas,

Im after a new lens ~17-50mm going on a D90

Any recommendations?
I know tammy is a well spoken of but VC or Non VC?

Thanks in advance.

dche5390 · 11th July 2010, 3:04 PM

VC. might as well.

Otherwise, I've always loved the Nikkor 17-55 @ $1000 secondhand.

C.Michael · 11th July 2010, 3:07 PM

I have heard lots of great things about both the VC and NON VC 17-50 Tamron, but then I read one well written scathing review of it, including pictures and it has slightly put me off. I'm not tempted to get the more expensive Canon. The Nikkor 17-55 seems like a good choice, but is pretty pricey.

HumbleBum · 11th July 2010, 8:24 PM

I am also looking for one on my 1000d

Awesomesauce · 11th July 2010, 9:00 PM

Tokina 16-50 f/2.8?

theDarkHorse · 11th July 2010, 9:07 PM

I haven't heard anything spectacular about the VC version of the Tamron 17-50.

I own the non-VC one, and it's pretty good, do miss the IS sometimes though on the Canon 17-85 I had before it broke

lacisnot · 11th July 2010, 10:52 PM

i had a tamron 27-80? i cant remmeber the zoom range but it was a 2.8 lens.

and the IQ was fine but AF sucked.

so from then on I only got Nikon lenses and the 17-55 is awesome (paid 1.3k second hand).

well worth the money.

hdcm · 11th July 2010, 10:56 PM

thanks for the suggestions so far,

ideally i want to spend around $500.

Id love the nikkor but its waay out my budget.

Price difference between the tammy VC / NON VC isn't significant for me to choose one over the other based on price.

How about the image quality?

sheezymaneezy · 11th July 2010, 11:00 PM

The Tammy would be the pick of the bunch. Especially at what you're looking at spending.

vindicator · 11th July 2010, 11:27 PM

If you're on a shoe string budget the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM is good value for $199 USD.

My mate uses one on a 550D. It's sharp in the centre. Not so at the edge.

OnSet Images · 12th July 2010, 3:47 AM

The non VC Tammy is still the hands down winner optically up against the VC version and definately a great value lens, it's going for just over $400 on ebay brand new which is a great price.

Otherwise if you need stabilisation, check out the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM which has just recently come out, the first couple of reviews that have surfaced look pretty good. It has optical stabilsation and hypersonic motor drive (equivalent to Canon's USM although no FTM). Seems to come in about twice the price of the Tammy though.

jezza323 · 12th July 2010, 6:51 AM

i have the non VC tammy, very sharp, decent build quality (on mine at least)

would recommend it to anyone

but would say make sure you have the option of returning if its not a good copy

BuD · 12th July 2010, 8:05 AM

i loe my 17-50 tamron works really well
mine doesnt have IS because im using sony

i get well sharp images with it

5p1k3y · 12th July 2010, 2:36 PM

Ignore what everybody else says about getting VC.
(I'm an expert on these tamrons LOL have had about 3)
Get the NON VC, its sharper lighter and heaps cheaper.

See if you can get a good copy 2nd hand its the way to go with these ones.

I've had 3 because the previous ones all had some odd issues like. back focus, not that sharp etc..

Heck im still using one now, also as DCHE said if u can get a 17 - 55 for 1k thats a bargain. otherwise tamron

I'd get it herehttps://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au...idProduct=2031 if u must have new

Tokina 16 - 50 s spec sounds good but honestly nobody buys it and its too expensive. Also reviews on it wasnt that great, its abit of a confused lens.

Oh and btw i use a D90 too with the tammy.

jezza323 · 12th July 2010, 2:42 PM

as said mine is the non VC, but i have in body stabilization, so it was a no brainer for me

with f2.8 constant and given its a fairly short even at 50mm, i dont think VC is really required anyway

11th July 2010, 2:55 PM	#1
hdcm Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Hills District Sydney NSW Posts: 292	What ~17-50mm Lens On Crop Body Hi Fellas, Im after a new lens ~17-50mm going on a D90 Any recommendations? I know tammy is a well spoken of but VC or Non VC? Thanks in advance. __________________ Sick of Paying for PC Upgrades? Check out our hot keyboard2console converters! Xbox 360 Eagle Eye Converter PS3 Eagle Eye Converter Tuact Aimon XB Tuact Aimon PS

11th July 2010, 3:04 PM	#2
dche5390 Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 2,899	VC. might as well. Otherwise, I've always loved the Nikkor 17-55 @ $1000 secondhand. __________________ Storytellers of love + life

11th July 2010, 3:07 PM	#3
C.Michael Iron Photographer Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Adelaide Posts: 922	I have heard lots of great things about both the VC and NON VC 17-50 Tamron, but then I read one well written scathing review of it, including pictures and it has slightly put me off. I'm not tempted to get the more expensive Canon. The Nikkor 17-55 seems like a good choice, but is pretty pricey. __________________ www.christophermorrison.com.au Canon 5D MKIII \| Canon 5D w/ grip \| Canon EOS 33 \| Sigma 50mm 1.4 \| EF 85 1.8 \| YN460 II \| 430EX II \|

11th July 2010, 8:24 PM	#4
HumbleBum Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Melbourne... Posts: 14,369	I am also looking for one on my 1000d __________________ The world is broken. We are the last choking embers of a fire waiting to burn in. Long before your grandfathers and their fathers before them. We started pulling our planet apart in the name of progress and blind ambition. The greed of man has devoured this earth until there was nothing left. We watch as time eats us alive - A generation born to witness the end of the world

11th July 2010, 10:52 PM	#7
lacisnot Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane Posts: 171	i had a tamron 27-80? i cant remmeber the zoom range but it was a 2.8 lens. and the IQ was fine but AF sucked. so from then on I only got Nikon lenses and the 17-55 is awesome (paid 1.3k second hand). well worth the money. __________________ DeviantArt Blog

11th July 2010, 9:00 PM	#5
Awesomesauce (Banned or Deleted) Join Date: May 2009 Location: Blue Mountains Posts: 826	Tokina 16-50 f/2.8?

11th July 2010, 10:56 PM	#8
hdcm Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Hills District Sydney NSW Posts: 292	thanks for the suggestions so far, ideally i want to spend around $500. Id love the nikkor but its waay out my budget. Price difference between the tammy VC / NON VC isn't significant for me to choose one over the other based on price. How about the image quality? __________________ Sick of Paying for PC Upgrades? Check out our hot keyboard2console converters! Xbox 360 Eagle Eye Converter PS3 Eagle Eye Converter Tuact Aimon XB Tuact Aimon PS

11th July 2010, 11:00 PM	#9
sheezymaneezy Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,400	The Tammy would be the pick of the bunch. Especially at what you're looking at spending.

11th July 2010, 11:27 PM	#10
vindicator Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: LoNoSho Posts: 6,489	If you're on a shoe string budget the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM is good value for $199 USD. My mate uses one on a 550D. It's sharp in the centre. Not so at the edge. __________________ Sucessfully sold to: JeffK, Pzest, Hardboiled, chugga15, havoc_1710, Surge, bondy_112, TRiN, kangfu, maddcore, hobo-jo, dwdc, Nanokillaz, PooJou, $tealthFiga, smoothunit, Wozzernux, core2dubious Sucessfully bought from: actinium, kogi, z2177199

12th July 2010, 3:47 AM	#11
OnSet Images Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 266	The non VC Tammy is still the hands down winner optically up against the VC version and definately a great value lens, it's going for just over $400 on ebay brand new which is a great price. Otherwise if you need stabilisation, check out the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM which has just recently come out, the first couple of reviews that have surfaced look pretty good. It has optical stabilsation and hypersonic motor drive (equivalent to Canon's USM although no FTM). Seems to come in about twice the price of the Tammy though.

12th July 2010, 6:51 AM	#12
jezza323 Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Brisbane Posts: 1,314	i have the non VC tammy, very sharp, decent build quality (on mine at least) would recommend it to anyone but would say make sure you have the option of returning if its not a good copy __________________ Notebook ASUS K55A\|i7\|16gb RAM\|256gb SSD\|Win 8 Storage HP N40L\|6.5TB Media WDTV Live+\|Samsung 40" LED SmartTV Phone Nokia Lumia 820 Cars 98 Toyota Starlet\|80 Mazda 323-12abp Bikes 2009 Avanti Vivace\|2010 SE Lager\|2001 Norco Charger Mtb flickr \| blog \| photo gear \| redbubble

12th July 2010, 8:05 AM	#13
BuD Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: brisbane Posts: 2,035	i loe my 17-50 tamron works really well mine doesnt have IS because im using sony i get well sharp images with it __________________ Gigabyte DS4 \| Q6600 quad \| OCZ 4x1 gig \| Leadtek 8800GT @stock \| 3x 1TB WD External - 1tb samsung HDD \| LiteOn 4x DVDRW \| Antec TrueBlue 480 \| 46" LCD \|

12th July 2010, 2:36 PM	#14
5p1k3y Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 295	Ignore what everybody else says about getting VC. (I'm an expert on these tamrons LOL have had about 3) Get the NON VC, its sharper lighter and heaps cheaper. See if you can get a good copy 2nd hand its the way to go with these ones. I've had 3 because the previous ones all had some odd issues like. back focus, not that sharp etc.. Heck im still using one now, also as DCHE said if u can get a 17 - 55 for 1k thats a bargain. otherwise tamron I'd get it herehttps://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au...idProduct=2031 if u must have new Tokina 16 - 50 s spec sounds good but honestly nobody buys it and its too expensive. Also reviews on it wasnt that great, its abit of a confused lens. Oh and btw i use a D90 too with the tammy. __________________ PC 1 \|i7 930\| GA-X58A UD3R \| Sapphire 6870\| 6GB PQI 1333mhz \|Dell U2711 \|HX650\|HDA Xplosion \| Fractal Design R2 PC 2 \|2500K @ 4.2Ghz 1.3v\|Asrock z68 Pro-M \|2gb 6950\|8gb Ripjaw X\|Antec HCG520\| Antec 902v3 Last edited by 5p1k3y; 12th July 2010 at 2:39 PM.

12th July 2010, 2:42 PM	#15
jezza323 Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Brisbane Posts: 1,314	as said mine is the non VC, but i have in body stabilization, so it was a no brainer for me with f2.8 constant and given its a fairly short even at 50mm, i dont think VC is really required anyway __________________ Notebook ASUS K55A\|i7\|16gb RAM\|256gb SSD\|Win 8 Storage HP N40L\|6.5TB Media WDTV Live+\|Samsung 40" LED SmartTV Phone Nokia Lumia 820 Cars 98 Toyota Starlet\|80 Mazda 323-12abp Bikes 2009 Avanti Vivace\|2010 SE Lager\|2001 Norco Charger Mtb flickr \| blog \| photo gear \| redbubble