# Lens Dilemma? Do I really need a fast mid range zoom?



## Nikon_Josh (May 26, 2012)

Bit of a dilemma right now, I am happy with all my lenses. But for some reason I really am craving a fast 17-50 lens still (I have asked about this before on here). The 18-55 VR kit lens, as great as the optics, the lens feels a bit plastic and cheap, not to mention how slow it is.

The lens I really want is a Sigma 17-50 2.8 (my dream DX lens, the perfect lens to round out my kit but PRICEY) but I am thinking the Tamron 17-50 may be the next best choice. Half of me was considering selling my 10-20 to fund the purchase of the Sigma 17-50 2.8, in the case of the Tamron 17-50 I could afford to keep my UWA and get the Tammy aswell. Which way would you guys go? This lens is going to be my workhorse lens afterall and will be on my camera 80% of the time as my 18-55 VR is now. Recently, I have become a bit irritated by my UWA lens and the crazy wide views and distortion. Perhaps I could do panoramas with the 17-50?

Now the second part of the question is this... will I really see an upgrade from my kit lens if I go with a fast 17-50 2.8 lens seeing as the majority of the time I shoot at F8? 

I sometimes get like this, I get the buying drug and I can't stop myself from ending up spending money I don't always need to spend. So I'm wondering if I am being slightly obsessive and part of me thinks I would be better off sticking with the 18-55 vr awhile longer.

Anyway, I know this question is an essay to read through. But thanks in advance for any help!


----------



## o hey tyler (May 26, 2012)

I've heard great things about the Tamron mid range f/2.8 zooms, better than the Sigma variants. I can understand your desire to upgrade to something faster. Being stuck with f/3.5 at the widest is very lame. That's why I use only f/1.4 primes.  

I think you should keep your UWA, sell your kit lens, and get the Tamron. Who knows when you might want to use the UWA again? Just because you aren't 'feeling' it right now, doesn't mean you won't enjoy shooting with it again. I felt the same way about the 50mm focal length for a while, but after walking around with it on one of my cameras, it feels "new" to me again.


----------



## bhop (May 26, 2012)

I have the Tamron, although I don't use it anymore since I got the Nikon 17-55.  Yes, you will notice a difference.  I've also read reviews that the Tamron is better.  In fact, one of my coworkers has the Sigma for his Canon and the Tamron is sharper.


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 26, 2012)

There is really only one type of lens I ever advise selling, and that is crop lenses when moving to full frame.  Selling your kit lens seems like a no-brainer, but what about when you want to sell your camera body to another new photographer?  You will have difficulty selling a entry or mid-level camera without including a lens, since you will probably be selling it to somebody who is getting their first DSLR.

If you actually shoot with your 18-55 at f/8 for the most part, I would recommend sticking with it and putting more quarters in your piggy bank until you can afford what you want.

At f/8, there will be virtually no difference between your kit lens and the Sigma or Tamron.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (May 26, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> I've heard great things about the Tamron mid range f/2.8 zooms, better than the Sigma variants. I can understand your desire to upgrade to something faster. Being stuck with f/3.5 at the widest is very lame. That's why I use only f/1.4 primes.
> 
> I think you should keep your UWA, sell your kit lens, and get the Tamron. Who knows when you might want to use the UWA again? Just because you aren't 'feeling' it right now, doesn't mean you won't enjoy shooting with it again. I felt the same way about the 50mm focal length for a while, but after walking around with it on one of my cameras, it feels "new" to me again.



Thanks Tyler, some very wise advice again. You may well be right on keeping the UWA, it's may have become a speciality lens but perhaps it's another weapon in the arsenal? 

And yeah, your right about the need to upgrade to something faster. I have some really sweet glass now in my collection and the 18-55, as good as it is at F8 feels like a beginner lens to me with the cheap plastic feel, it's my workhorse lens and feels as if it will fall apart at any second which always makes me slightly cautious when using it. I just wondered if I would really see a big ENOUGH IQ improvement with a new lens to justify the expense.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 26, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard great things about the Tamron mid range f/2.8 zooms, better than the Sigma variants. I can understand your desire to upgrade to something faster. Being stuck with f/3.5 at the widest is very lame. That's why I use only f/1.4 primes.
> ...



I think you would not only see better IQ at larger apertures (like f/4-5.6 for example), but you'd ALSO really enjoy the fact that you have the option to shoot at f/2.8 throughout the entire zoom range. The added versatility alone would be enough for me to pop on one in your situation. That, and well, you'll just look way more PROFOTOGRAFER with an f/2.8 zoom.  BUY IT FOR THE STREET CRED! Haha

And yes, the UWA is another tool to keep IMO. You never know how far down the line you'd be when you get to this awesome view, prime for an image, and you'll still have a lens wide enough to capture it. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (May 26, 2012)

bhop said:


> I have the Tamron, although I don't use it anymore since I got the Nikon 17-55.  Yes, you will notice a difference.  I've also read reviews that the Tamron is better.  In fact, one of my coworkers has the Sigma for his Canon and the Tamron is sharper.



Has your friend got the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS or the older 18-50 2.8? I have heard rave reviews about the new Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (May 26, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



Haha! So you reckon it's a good lens to buy to impress the ladies then?? 

Yes, from the 'test charts' (our old friend ArgieRamos used to mention test charts alot, remember? ) I have seen the mid range zooms do seem fantastically usable at apertures such as F4 which is always a nice bonus and the step up in build quality should be noticeable aswell. Cheers for adding some clarity to my confused mine.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (May 26, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> There is really only one type of lens I ever advise selling, and that is crop lenses when moving to full frame.  Selling your kit lens seems like a no-brainer, but what about when you want to sell your camera body to another new photographer?  You will have difficulty selling a entry or mid-level camera without including a lens, since you will probably be selling it to somebody who is getting their first DSLR.
> 
> If you actually shoot with your 18-55 at f/8 for the most part, I would recommend sticking with it and putting more quarters in your piggy bank until you can afford what you want.
> 
> At f/8, there will be virtually no difference between your kit lens and the Sigma or Tamron.



Thanks Kerby, you have made some really valid points. Maybe I should just stick with the 18-55 VR till I have the money to get the thing I really want. Alot to consider!


----------



## lonewolfsx (May 27, 2012)

From what I have seen the Tamron 17-50 (non stabilized) is far sharper  wide open than the Sigma version. And that's hard for me to say since I  am a pretty big fan of Sigma lenses (hmm not many people say that it  seems..).

However I totally agree with holding on to the cash and  saving up for higher level stuff in the long run, especially if your  only complaint with the 18-55 thus far is its plastic construction...  and while probably "better" constructed, the 17-50 from either sigma or  tamron will still be largely plastic, just with tighter tolerances and  such. I'd instead save towards something such as the Nikkor 17-55 if  you're set on that focal range, it's sharp and solid, plus metal and  weathersealed and all that pro-level stuff too.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (May 27, 2012)

Thanks again to everyone here for your input, half of me was set on keeping the 18-55 VR as it is a great lens for the price.

But I have just found a great deal on a Tamron 17-50 2.8 Non-VC on Ebay from a reputable seller and have jumped on it! In terms of price/performance it seems like an incredible buy, pro level image quality for £175. The only thing it lacks is image stabilisation/VR, but how often will I need it with a short 2.8 lens? I don't think it will be a huge issue for me specially as many people seem to get by just fine with their 24-70 2.8's which have never had VR. 

And as you mention lonewolfsx, it seems to be sharp straight from wide open.

Tyler, your advice won the race in the end.


----------



## HallieD (Jun 5, 2012)

Fwiw, I use my nikon 17-55 2.8 a LOT, just watch it when your shoot wide if your subject is close to the edge fo your frame! But love the range I get with it


----------

