DSLRUsers.com

So I am after a bit of advice on whether I should be upgrading my 18-70 DX to a second hand 17-55 2.8 DX. I am fairly progressed down the decision process but thought this would be a great time to get a sanity check.

I have no problems at all with the 18-70 DX other than I always take it off and use the 50 mm 1.8 for portraits to get that little bit of bokeh that seems so pleasing to the eye (to me anyway)

At the moment most of the shots (>70%) are taken with the 18-70 at the shorter end – either landscapes or portrait work of friends and the family. 20% are taken with the 50mm 1.8 and the final 10% is a mix of 90mm Tamron, Siggy 10-20mm and 55-200 VR.

So the rational behind the 17-55 2.8 as that I will still get the equiv short end of the 18-70 with better IQ and some bokeh for portraits as well as not having to swap to the 50 1.8 so much. The 17-55 would be on the camera >80% of the time.

Based on my current lens usage I could probably sell the Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 90mm and the 18-70 to help fund the 17-55.

Thanks for reading this far if you are still here - what are your opinions.

Have you considered the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Fraction of the cost, fraction of the weight.
Mine is on the camera 90% of the time. I don't have the dollars for the Nikon version so it wasn't really an option for me when I bought the Tamron. Hopefully someone else who may have had the oportunity to have a go at both lenses will be able to give some advice on why the Nikon version would be better if you have the $$ to pay for it

+1 on the Tamron, I own a copy of the non micro-motor variant and love it. I cannot claim to have tested the NIkkor intensively though. However, compared to the Canon 17-40L there is virtually no difference other than the Tamron being more prone to glare.

Thanks for the feedback, hoping to get into a shop tomorrow at lunchtime to test out both lenses on my camera.

Is there any quality issues with the Tamron from lens to lens or is that only a Sigma issue?

whitey wrote:Is there any quality issues with the Tamron from lens to lens or is that only a Sigma issue?

Sigma only.

gstark wrote:

whitey wrote:Is there any quality issues with the Tamron from lens to lens or is that only a Sigma issue?

Sigma only.

but I do think someone on the forum has had a bad run with Tamron's but in general the quality is consistantly high.

OK - sold off the old lenses and close to the purchasing decision. Doing some research on the Tamron 17-50 there seesm to be a lot of negative feedback about the AF speed on the Nikon mount with the buuilt in AF motor.

Anyone able to comment?

I have compared the two versions, micro-motor is a fair bit slower unfortunately. What lenses did you end up selling?

Sold the sigma 10-20 and the tamron 90. If I get the 17-50 then the nikkor 18-70 will go as well - I bought too many lenses.

whitey wrote:I bought too many lenses.

I am not sure that this concept exists.

gstark wrote:

whitey wrote:I bought too many lenses.

I am not sure that this concept exists.

Either did I until I was tidying up the office with the missus.

I uncovered
D80
SB600
Nikkor 24mm 2.8
Nikkor 50mm 1.8
Nikkor 18-70
Nikkor 55-200 VR
Sigma 10-20
Tamron 90mm

Minolta x700
Minolta 50mm 1.7
Carl Zeiss 24-200 (minolta mount)
Minolta Flash
Minolta TC
Minolta Macro converter

Nikon FG
Nikkor 50mm 1.8 m/f
Tamron 70-200 m/f

Canon Canonflex
Canon 50mm 1.8

Yashica 635

Canon Ixus

12 months ago there was just the Ixus.

i had 2 tammie failures but i think i was unlucky.
if you need fast AF i wouldnt touch it with a barge pole. if fast AF isnt a priority then you're fine.

i used the 17-55 alot today incidentally. nice lens. shame its DX.