Help me choose a new lens...please?

[Coach]

I hope you guys can help me decide on a new lens in the 17-50mm f/2.8 category.

I have a Nikon D200 which I love. My lens inventory consists of ...

Nikkor AF-S DX VR 18-200mm f/3.5~5.6G IF-ED
Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D (Possible trade in)
Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

My choices are:
1) Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC AF
2) Sigma's new 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM
3) Tokina AT-X 165 Pro DX AF 16-50mm f/2.8

I'm not even looking at the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 because it's almost 3 times the price of the other lenses.

If any of you have experience with any of these lenses or if you have another recommendation your input would be greatly appreciated. I will be doing lots of research on the NET but I would also like to here your thoughts and opinions.

Thanks for your time and interest.

 

[mom2rtk]

I'll be curious to see the responses. I have been looking for something in this range in an 2.8 for my Canon.

The general impression I have seen is that the Tamron tends to be sharper than the Sigma. But once you move to the version with VC, it loses some of that sharpness. I have also heard the focus motor on the non VC tends to be louder than many are used to.

I'm so torn it has me thinking maybe I just need to save until I can afford the IS Canon version.

 

[Agent P]

What situation are you planning on it for? You have part of the range well covered with the faster 35 and 50, with foot zoom the whole range is covered. Both of the primes are much sharper than any of the zooms. The best reviews I have seen have been the Tamron. Have used older tamrons and found them to be a good buy.

 

[Coach]

I enjoy using natural light and depth of field. I've also noted that a lot of pros like to use a 24-70mm f/2.8 as their bread and butter lens. My DW and I were on the Wonder a couple of years back and there was a photographer from ABC TV on board taking pictures. I'd have to say that every time I saw him he was using the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8.

 

[southpawcaptures]

I have a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM for Canon but I am sure it works the same for Nikon.

I really like this lens. I do both landscape and portrait with it. Quality is good. Images are sharp.

 

[wenrob]

I love my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, haven't taken it off the camera since I got it. Nice, sharp and affordable, I don't hesitate to recommend it.

 

[mom2rtk]

I love my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, haven't taken it off the camera since I got it. Nice, sharp and affordable, I don't hesitate to recommend it.

Hi Wen!

Do you have the IS version of this, or the non-IS. I keep getting close to buying, but can't commit.......

BTW.... I saw these photos before but still have to say....... they just don't come any cuter!

 

[wenrob]

So weird, I edited and it quoted?

 

[wenrob]

Hi Wen!

Do you have the IS version of this, or the non-IS. I keep getting close to buying, but can't commit.......

BTW.... I saw these photos before but still have to say....... they just don't come any cuter!

Aw, thank you! As I was trying to add to my first post before things went wonky. This is the non IS/VR version. I personally don't think it's needed for this focal length. These were wide open, natural light.

 

[Uncle Greg]

Awesome shots Wenrob!

I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as well and I don't think you can go wrong with it. Mine is the pre-stabilized version. If I was to buy again, I'd get the VC version now that it's out.


Coach, I'm assuming you are finding it annoying to switch lens while using your primes. Is that why you want a zoom in this range? If not I might be inclined to stick with your 35 and 50. I'd like to hear more about what you're trying to achieve with the new lens because I do see other alternatives in your lens line-up.

 

[mom2rtk]

Awesome shots Wenrob!

I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as well and I don't think you can go wrong with it. Mine is the pre-stabilized version. If I was to buy again, I'd get the VC version now that it's out.


Coach, I'm assuming you are finding it annoying to switch lens while using your primes. Is that why you want a zoom in this range? If not I might be inclined to stick with your 35 and 50. I'd like to hear more about what you're trying to achieve with the new lens because I do see other alternatives in your lens line-up.

I don't consider myself as having very stable hands, so I like the idea of the VC version of this lens. I just have read too many reports that the non-VC lost some of its sharpness when the VC was added.

SO many people seem to just love their non-VC version.....

 

[wenrob]

I don't consider myself as having very stable hands, so I like the idea of the VC version of this lens. I just have read too many reports that the non-VC lost some of its sharpness when the VC was added.

SO many people seem to just love their non-VC version.....

Well, you have to remember you'll be able to shoot at a wider app and get more speed. Personally if the VC isn't as sharp it kind of defeats the purpose. You'd have to stop down to get a sharper image. It sounds like the VC would cancel out the usefulness of having f/2.8 throughout, kwim?

Thank you Uncle Greg.

 

[mom2rtk]

Well, you have to remember you'll be able to shoot at a wider app and get more speed. Personally if the VC isn't as sharp it kind of defeats the purpose. You'd have to stop down to get a sharper image. It sounds like the VC would cancel out the usefulness of having f/2.8 throughout, kwim?

Makes complete sense.

Someone linked a youtube clip to show me the sound of the focus motor, so I'm prepared for that. Do you think it's slow to focus at all?

 

[wenrob]

Makes complete sense.

Someone linked a youtube clip to show me the sound of the focus motor, so I'm prepared for that. Do you think it's slow to focus at all?

It can be at times but never where I've missed the shot or been overly frustrated with it.

 

[Coach]

What I'm looking for is a lens I can use with my camera when I'm not going to take pictures. Let me explain...Say I'm doing some errands or I'm going to work or I'm taking a friend to the airport. or I'm just going for a walk with my wife. I want a lens that is easy to carry and I don't have time to set up my tripod or wait for hours for the perfect shot. I want a lens that is good for low light situations and has a great depth of field. The vibration reduction would be icing on the cake. I don't think this is the perfect all around lens but it's pretty darn close.

 

[wenrob]

What I'm looking for is a lens I can use with my camera when I'm not going to take pictures. Let me explain...Say I'm doing some errands or I'm going to work or I'm taking a friend to the airport. or I'm just going for a walk with my wife. I want a lens that is easy to carry and I don't have time to set up my tripod or wait for hours for the perfect shot. I want a lens that is good for low light situations and has a great depth of field. The vibration reduction would be icing on the cake. I don't think this is the perfect all around lens but it's pretty darn close.

It is pretty close but keep in mind it's not a light lens and I would think the VC would make it a little heavier. That kind of quick on the go stuff I'd be more likely to throw a prime on. Not as versatile but light and covers a wide range of shooting conditions just no zoom. We all have our personal preferences, me, I'd rather jack the ISO up a little bit rather then lose sharpness to the VC. However I don't know how the D200 handles noise (the D90 does a pretty good job) so your preference may be to sacrifice a little sharpness over noise. Good luck on what you choose! Like I said it's my favorite lens these days, nothing bad to say about it.

 

[Uncle Greg]

What I'm looking for is a lens I can use with my camera when I'm not going to take pictures. Let me explain...Say I'm doing some errands or I'm going to work or I'm taking a friend to the airport. or I'm just going for a walk with my wife. I want a lens that is easy to carry and I don't have time to set up my tripod or wait for hours for the perfect shot. I want a lens that is good for low light situations and has a great depth of field. The vibration reduction would be icing on the cake. I don't think this is the perfect all around lens but it's pretty darn close.

I would think your 35 f/1.8 would do a great job for what you're describing but I guess we can assume you'd like a little more flexibility and range. In that case I would go for the Tamron 17-50 VC.

Just to further complicate your life you may want to look at letting go of the 18-200. Once you have a f/2.8 lens in the 17-50 range you'll never want to use the 18-200 for that focal length. Unless you really love the idea of having one lens to cover all that range, I'd suggest you look into the Nikkor 70-300 VR. That would get you a little more reach and the quality on the 70-300 is well beyond what it costs.

11-16
17-50
35 prime
70-300 VR

That's an awesome kit.

 

[Coach]

I know it's been a while but after extensive research and talking with my local camera store I've finally decided on which 16-50mm f/2.8 lens I'm going to go with.
And the winner is...Tokina.

The reviews I've read and the fact that I also own Tokina's amazing 11-16
f2.8 UWA, it truly was a no-brainer. Thank you all for your suggestions and opinions.