7 replies to this topic

[CastlePrints]

I have only been serious about taking photos the last year or so but have learned lots about the camera (originally wanted to throw the D3100 off the back of the P&O cruise I was on at the time) but determined for it not to beat me and talking to a million people I have found that lenses are the hardest to understand. I was after a lens that would do portrait, landscape and other closer work and was recommended the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens. I love this lens. It now is my main lens and takes beautiful photos. I am mastering the lens (and camera) but at least now I am enjoying it. I highly recommend this lens for ease of use and affordability.... Awesome lens

 

Here is a photo I took with it just last night.... and the best one I have taken so far...

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Tony892]

Nice image. Presume that you used a tripod, what settings did you use?

[alden]

Yes, what were your settings?

 

That Tamron is one sharp lens!

[Tony892]

What is the differences between using this lens and a Nikon 18-55m?

[alden]

The difference is the maximum aperature. 

 

f/2.8 is faster than 3.5. The difference in cost for that little bit more glass is amazing. 

[Afterimage]

I'm a Tammy 17-50 f/2.8 user as well and It's one of my "go-to" lenses. Very sharp center (a touch soft on the edges below f/4.5 but not terrible) and excellent stabilization. It's one of Tamron's best lenses from their last generation of glass!

[Russ]

I had a 17-50 VC, terrible edges so sold it, bought a Nikon 17-55/f2.8 2nd hand, big and heavy and no stabilisation. Just bought a Sigma 17-50 OS, haven't used it much yet, but seems good so far.

 

All i've read indicates the non-VC Tamron 17-50 is better optically.

[Andy McQueen]

Always been really pleased with images from my non VR version - here's one from last year's London Olympic Men's Marathon

Attached Thumbnails

•