photog peeps (esp. Nikon users)...technical ? for ya

MrsMillerTime

Okay.  So I reeeeeeeally want to get a new lens.  I have been eyeballing the Tamron 28-75 for a while now and went to Precision just now to check it out.  The sales associate there told me that because I have a Nikon D90, he would strongly recommend I get the 17-50 instead.  Something about the D90 not being a full frame camera and the 17-50 would "act like" a 28-75 on my camera?

I confused.

And the $150 price difference (not in my favor, BTW) is not helping his cause. 

mrs.wildman

Yes. He's right. On a cropped sensor, the 17-50 is more like a 28-75. And the 28-75 would be more like a 40-100 on your camera. I actually have the 17-50 as my backup for the D300 (I have the nikon 24-70 for my d700).

IMO the Tamron 17-50 is awesome and totally worth the money. It has great reviews online if you Goog it, and I recommend it to all of my friends who want to get away from their kit lenses. I got mine (and many of my other lenses) used, and have never had issues with it. Amazon actually sells both the 17-50 and 28-75 for the same price online. Fredmiranda.com has a great buy/sell forum, and I've gotten quite a bit of gear there and never been screwed over. KEH.com is another good resource.

(FWIW I never, ever, ever buy anything from Prec..ision. I like to go there to test things, but their pricing is extortion IMO and their customer service leaves a bad taste in my mouth...)

christym0606

No clue, but I"ll be watching this thread.  I'm in the same boat: have a D90, desperately want a new lens, and leaning towards the Tamron 28-75

MrsMillerTime

mrs.wildman:

Yes. He's right. On a cropped sensor, the 17-50 is more like a 28-75. And the 28-75 would be more like a 40-100 on your camera. I actually have the 17-50 as my backup for the D300 (I have the nikon 24-70 for my d700).

IMO the Tamron 17-50 is awesome and totally worth the money. It has great reviews online if you Goog it, and I recommend it to all of my friends who want to get away from their kit lenses. I got mine (and many of my other lenses) used, and have never had issues with it. Amazon actually sells both the 17-50 and 28-75 for the same price online. Fredmiranda.com has a great buy/sell forum, and I've gotten quite a bit of gear there and never been screwed over. KEH.com is another good resource.

(FWIW I never, ever, ever buy anything from Prec..ision. I like to go there to test things, but their pricing is extortion IMO and their customer service leaves a bad taste in my mouth...)

Kewl.  Thanks! 

christym0606

If I can add another question... does anybody know anything about Sigma lenses?  If 17-50 is the way to go, how about the Sigma 18-50?  It's way cheaper than the Tamron, but has the same average reviews.

MrsMillerTime

christym0606:

If I can add another question... does anybody know anything about Sigma lenses?  If 17-50 is the way to go, how about the Sigma 18-50?  It's way cheaper than the Tamron, but has the same average reviews.

I don't know anything about Sigma lenses specifically, but the aperture isn't fixed at 2.8 like the Tamron is.  Which is why it is a lot cheaper.   

KDM2006

What other lenses do you have? I have a 28-75 mm Tamron on a full frame sensor.  (I love it!)  I'm also curious if the lowest (really the highest, I hate how backwards that is!) aperture is different on the 17-50 mm.  I would take that into consideration when picking one out as well. 

Christy - to answer your question, I have had nikon, tamron and sigma lenses, and I like them in that order, but sigma is a close third, it could have totally been the lens I had that just didn't do anything for me in the end.  It took good photos and I liked it, it was just something about the way it was "built" I guess.

For anyone out there buying lenses, my advice is to make sure you have a sharp copy of the lens.  If you are putting all your money into that kind of investment, you better make it a worth while investment!

christym0606

MrsMillerTime:

I don't know anything about Sigma lenses specifically, but the aperture isn't fixed at 2.8 like the Tamron is.  Which is why it is a lot cheaper.   

ahh gotcha.  I did locate the Sigma fixed 2.8, and it's even more than the Tamron.  Well, if you end up getting the Tamron, I'd love to know what you think of it!

Mrs.Purdue

The mm is really relative here.  If you've tried out the 28-75 on a cropped sensor (you can bring in your own camera to precision and try it out, or just rent the lens for a day), then you'll know exactly what that focal distance is and how it works for you. 

maybe you want something that is more like a 40-100 (that will give you a good zoom for when she's playing soccer, or a little further away from you), but still be able to shoot indoor without having to stand in another room.  Maybe the 17-50 wouldn't be enough zoom for you, you know?  

What do you have now and (in terms of reach), what do you wish it had more of?  Like if you have the 50mm now, do you find that lens WAY too close, but never too far (in which case, get the 17-50, because it will give you more room inside and absolutely no further zoom than what you have)?  or do you find yourself needing room on both ends (sometimes you need more room inside and sometimes you wish it'd get a little closer outside)?  Then I'd get the 28-75.  

 

MrsMillerTime

Mrs.Purdue:

The mm is really relative here.  If you've tried out the 28-75 on a cropped sensor (you can bring in your own camera to precision and try it out, or just rent the lens for a day), then you'll know exactly what that focal distance is and how it works for you. 

maybe you want something that is more like a 40-100 (that will give you a good zoom for when she's playing soccer, or a little further away from you), but still be able to shoot indoor without having to stand in another room.  Maybe the 17-50 wouldn't be enough zoom for you, you know?  

What do you have now and (in terms of reach), what do you wish it had more of?  Like if you have the 50mm now, do you find that lens WAY too close, but never too far (in which case, get the 17-50, because it will give you more room inside and absolutely no further zoom than what you have)?  or do you find yourself needing room on both ends (sometimes you need more room inside and sometimes you wish it'd get a little closer outside)?  Then I'd get the 28-75.   

I've got a 50 & 35 prime lenses that work great when I'm "seriously" trying to take pictures of DD.  They generally work great for my all-purpose shooting and I'm honestly very happy with them both.  I'm really just looking for a good all purpose lens that I can use 90% of the time when I know I'll be doing a lot of shooting but don't want to tie myself down with my prime lenses and/or can't carry too much equipment.

When I do use the 50, I definitely feel like I'm always on top of my subject so that's why I'm starting to lean more towards the 17-50.  I do have a craptacular kit 18-105 so I imagine that if I reeeeeally needed more zoom, I could always use that.  But I do see what you're saying (re: more zoom than I have) which is why I was leaning towards the 28-75 initially.

Blargh.  This is too hard. 

mlf625

All I can tell you is that I've got the Tamron 28-75 for my Nikon D60 and have been very happy with it.  DH bought it for me as a gift, and first purchased the 17-50.  I ended up exchanging it for the 28-75 because a) the photog board people strongly preferred the 28-75 and b) I wanted $200 back, seeing as how I'm not doing anything fancy with my camera and the price tag of the 17-50 made me want to barf.  Or exchange it for a Burberry bag.  

misjenn

I was just about to post what everyone else has said but I guess my next question is are you wanting to upgrade your camera anytime soon. If so, I would go ahead and get the full frame lens.

MrsMillerTime

misjenn:

I was just about to post what everyone else has said but I guess my next question is are you wanting to upgrade your camera anytime soon. If so, I would go ahead and get the full frame lens.

That is a GENIUS point. I don't know if I'm going to upgrade anytime soon but whenever I do, my next camera will be FF for sure.  

EGMphoto

Also depends if you like the wider end (i.e. is that why you'd want the 17-50?)...

The 28-75 on a crop sensor will give you some nice, very flattering compression on the longer end. I have that lens and love it (mine is for Canon, but there is really no difference. I am not shooting full frame).

GL! 

libbyann

I'd highly suggest renting first. I thought I would love zoom lenses, but in reality, I'm not a big fan of them. You may love it, but it wouldn't hurt to rent first before shelling out the $$ for a lens, only to find out you're not in love with it. I've rented from Precision (ehhh experience) and lensrentals.com (fantastic service), lensprotogo.com (good service). It looks like the 17-50 would be about $40 and the 28-75 would be about $35 for a four day rental from Lens Rentals

molliedb

i also think renting is a good idea.  also, yes FF is awesome, but at current prices the cheapest FF nikon is nearly $3k and word on the street is that price is about to go up.  possibly way up.  so i wouldn't necessarily base decisions on future body purchases since lenses hold their value pretty well and you could always sell yours

MrsMillerTime

Thanks for all the input, ladies.  I needed the lens for this weekend so I went ahead and bought the 28-75 from Amazon since I've got 30 days to return it if I change my mind.  I'll probably look into borrowing a 17-50 after this weekend so I can really compare and make a final decision on which one I want going forward.