Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    794

    Tokina AF 16-50mm f/2.8 vs. Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 vs. 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM

    Just for interest sake, which one would take your vote based purely on IQ?

    Do they compare to Nikons version and how do they compare to the 18-55 kitty?
    My Savior, My Leader, My Father and My Shepard.
    I praise thee Lord All Mighty


    D700/Nikkor 14-24mm 2.8/Nikkor 24-70mm 2.8/Sigma 70-300mm 4-5.6 APO/ Nikkor 50mm 1.8

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,931
    Quote Originally Posted by anco85 View Post
    J
    Do they compare to Nikons version and how do they compare to the 18-55 kitty?

    They are all f2.8 to start with. That's going to make a huge difference in usefulness compared to the kit lens.
    My gut feeling would go to the Tokina they seem to do well with lenses in that range but that's just based on accumulated reading and comments not specific research so I'll wait to see what others think.

    Edit:
    I just had a read through the three reviews on Photozone and it seems that all have issues but the Sigma ranks third with a tight race between the Tokina and Tamron. Depending on your perspective and prejudices I think that you could call it either way between then.
    Last edited by K1W1; 08-31-2010 at 05:14 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    794
    That's good to hear, thanks K1w1.

    I should probably check some pics on flickr
    My Savior, My Leader, My Father and My Shepard.
    I praise thee Lord All Mighty


    D700/Nikkor 14-24mm 2.8/Nikkor 24-70mm 2.8/Sigma 70-300mm 4-5.6 APO/ Nikkor 50mm 1.8

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Head north 'til you smack a polar bear, then crank it back 50 miles.
    Posts
    440
    Anco, I can't comment on either the Tokina or Sigma offerings, but my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 totally blows away my 18-55 kit lens for IQ and usefullness. I know its not the 17-50 you were talking about, but it seems to be as well regarded as the 17-50. Its also a full frame lens (I believe), so if you ever find yourself updating your body...

    Rod
    Critique most definitely desired...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    32
    I had exactly the same decision to make about half a year before. I ended up going vacation than buying the lens (students can easily resist NAS by just not having any money for both vacation and photography).
    At this point my decision would have been the Tamron - either the 17-50 or the 28-75
    (Note I do not own any of the lenses you asked about- so dont rely on me too much )

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Surat, India
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by DiamondSCattleCo View Post
    Anco, I can't comment on either the Tokina or Sigma offerings, but my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 totally blows away my 18-55 kit lens for IQ and usefullness. I know its not the 17-50 you were talking about, but it seems to be as well regarded as the 17-50. Its also a full frame lens (I believe), so if you ever find yourself updating your body...

    Rod
    Tamron 17-50 2.8 has been talked about good all around, It will prove a significant upgrade over the kit lens.

    I dont think its a full frame lens, although it would mount on a FF but will cause severe vignette and IQ issues.
    http://photo.net/equipment/tamron/17-50vc/

    Tokina 16-50 2.8 seem to have a better control over barrel distortion and the built quality is somewhat higher then the other two. It also makes nicer bokeh, especially compared to the Sigma whose bokehs are not that great.
    Last edited by ANP !!!; 08-31-2010 at 12:47 PM.
    Flickr
    Canon 500D Kit || 50 1.8 || Sigma 10-20 HSM EX || Slik Pro 340DX || Hitech GNDs + B+W #110

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    .bc.ca
    Posts
    209
    I too have been considering the Tamron. It just received a small price drop recently, and if you don't mind the non-VC (IS/VR) version, it's even cheaper.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,546
    I've got the Tamm 17-50 and its been rockin since day one. The optics are worlds better than the kitlens. The ONLY downside is the auto focus is a bit on the loud side as far as lenses go but unless your trying to photography sleeping babies at the lenses minimum focus distance it shouldn't be an issue. Tones of pictures with it on my flickr.
    Nikon D90, D40 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 35mm f/1.8
    Vertical Grip, SB-600, SB-24, Sunpak 433D, Metz 40AF-4N, Alienbees CyberSync Triggers

    R3G Media | Flickr

    "You're pulling some awesome action shots with a cam and lens that are supposed to be rubbish ! " - Rooz

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,929
    Is price an issue? If not look into the Nikon 17-55 2.8 You wont find a better lens in that range!
    Jason

    "A coward dies a thousand deaths, a soldier dies but once."-2Pac


    A bunch of Nikon stuff!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    794
    I'd like to keep it under U$550 TBH jcon, but thanks for the suggestion.

    Thanks for all the info guys, I'll do some more reading and see what my heart says, apart from the Sigma, they all seem about the same IQ wise.

    The 28-75 also seems worth a gander
    My Savior, My Leader, My Father and My Shepard.
    I praise thee Lord All Mighty


    D700/Nikkor 14-24mm 2.8/Nikkor 24-70mm 2.8/Sigma 70-300mm 4-5.6 APO/ Nikkor 50mm 1.8

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •