Camera Labs

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 Di II XR VC LD (IF) for Nikon ($600 after tax)
or
Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM ($900 after tas)
or
Nikon 17-55mm f2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor ($1500 after tax)

Here are the lenses that I've been searching up. I want to buy a lens that performs well, and lasting. Though the Nikkor lens is expensive and heavy (almost 800g!!), I'm planning to save some money for the exceptional glass.

Is it worth that much money, the Nikkor lens?
What makes Nikkor lens so expensive? the lens formula?
Would it be suitable for 'everyday shooting'?

I would really appreciate lots of input on this!!!
Thank you Camera Labbers!!

_________________
Andrew
nikon d7000
18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 Ed Dx, 50mm f/1.8G

Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 without VC! Sharpest lens for the money,sharper than the newer Tamron & the Sigma. Also,the expensive Nikon lens doesn't have stabilisation either,so it really depends if you're looking for the best lens for the money or you really need stabilisation with such a lens.

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here

When I went to s camera shop and asked between the three, both people there said that the Tamron is below Sigma if anything... but is that true?

_________________
Andrew
nikon d7000
18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 Ed Dx, 50mm f/1.8G

For that money couldn't you get the 24-70 2.8. A friend of mine had that lens and it is very good. You should definitely consider it.

_________________
Camera: Canon 550D with battery grip
Lenses: Canon 24-105mm f/4L, Canon 50mm f1.4, Canon 18-55mm, Tamron 70-300mm,
Accessories: Manfrotto 055XPROB with 808RC4 head, Canon 430ex II speedlite, Lowepro Nova 180AW and Lowepro Pro Runner 450AW

Oh that is so lame, every hot girl who can aim a camera thinks she’s a photographer -Stewie Griffin

The Tamron is indeed below the Sigma,but for it's built quality & focus speed. You should test the Sigma,see if you like it.

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here

Do you really need a constant 2.8f aperture lens? They are relatively expensive compared to variable aperture models. For a Nikon D7000 I would recommend you consider the 16-85VR or the cheaper Sigma 17-70 OS. Both have good MTF curves and are low on distortion and CA. The VR/OS will enable you to shoot at lower shutter speeds with no camera shake.
For a real bargain try to find a used Nikon 18-70, a much underrated lens with good build quality and great optics.

_________________
Nikon D300 D80 D40 18-55mm 18-70mm 18-135mm 55-200mm 18-200mm 28mm 2.8f 50mm 1.8f 85mm 1.8f
Panasonic DMCFZ28 Slik Pro 700DX

I know a little about a lot, a lot about little and everything about nothing.

Maye look at the Nikkor 16-85 ED VR DX lens. That one is great to.
But its not F2.8 of course.

Some F2.8 lenses are useless at F2.8 anyway becuase of very bad quality full open so you will probabaly use it at F4 anyway most of the time.

Maybe just buy a Nikkor AF-D 20mm F2.8 prime and a AF-S 50mm F1.8 for about the same money as the tamron. Better quality, more fun.

If you really want a zoom you wont regret a 16-85 ED VR DX on a D7000.
I want one myself but I might just go for a 20mm prime or something since I already have a 35mm prime and a 70-300mm telelens. so i dont really need the zoom and rather go for ultimate sharpness.

I still have to compare 20mm primes and 16-85mm zoom a bit more before i buy it. Of course 16-85mm is a F3.5-F5.6 lens. But if you use 2 stops more ISO you still have enough light and hardly any noise on a D7000.

Thank you for your suggestions Camera Labbers!
So do you think the 17-55 f/2.8 is not worth its money?
And I would like to know more about 'Optical formula' of different lenses. What make a lens' optics better than others?

Thank you once again!!

_________________
Andrew
nikon d7000
18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 Ed Dx, 50mm f/1.8G

The Nikkor 17-55 F2.8 DX is the best and sharpest lens you can buy for your Nikon DX camera.

Extremely good lens, it doesnt get any better then that.
But its $1500. But it is one the best nikkors you can buy.

On Flickr discussions they say Nikkor 17-55mm beat Sigma and tamron equivelants hands down and also beats any other Nikkor DX zoomlens such as 16-85mm.

16-85mm is a good lens but you get what you pay for.

If you want the very best lens you can buy, then the Nikkor 17-55mm is the one you want. But its still a lot of money for a dx lens...

What makes it better? I dont know about the technical stuff I just look at the pictures that come out of the camera to judge a lens (You can look on flickr for other people that made pictures with that lens). Thats how I judge lenses I want to buy, I dont even look at charts or anything. Well maybe aperture sharpness tests but thats it.

The Nikon 17-55mm is not really sharper than the Tamron 17-50mm..however,it has better contrast,much better built & much faster AF. I don't think it's worth it's huge price.

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here

I read discussions on Flickr about these lenses. They all prefer the Nikkor.
So its he better lens overall with best results. Its a bit expensive yes, but isn't that always with high end stuff. You pay a lot more for a little bit extra quality. Apperently its hard to achieve that quality thats why its expensive. maybe tougher quality control too.

Its just the question if you want to spend the money on a Nikkor 17-55DX lens.

Nikkor 17-55DX is just the best lens and nothings compares to it.
I never heard anyone say my Nikkor lens fell apart after 6 months. Or it doesnt autofocus anymore. You hear these stories about sigma and tamron a lot more often. Thats one reason i always buy genuine Nikkor lenses.

Well,test them yourself. "Discussions" may be subjective. I tested the Nikon,I was dissapointed with it's huge price & just good performance. Besides,check the review of the Nikon & Tamron from photozone.de,if you want a professional analysis. The MTF charts look almost the same.
"A little bit of extra quality"costs a LOT more.

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here

MTF charts dont say anything. Some say Nikkor 18-105mm and nikkor 16-85mm lenses have almost the same mtf charts therefor they say 16-85mm is way overpriced for what it is. Well I have seen pictures from a 16-85 and they are way better then a 18-105 no matter what the charts say.

It does not mean anything. I am also interested in audio and i will tell you a little parralel story: I am sure a 10 watt tube amplifier sounds better then a 1000 watt bose system. It has less power (watts) watts and its like 4 times the price. OMG, what a rip-off most people will think looking at worse the specs. Well if you listen to it the less spec old fashioned tube amp sound way better even with same specifications as a bose it still sounds way better..

Its the same with lenses I suppose. Who cares if you have a F2.8 lens if its only really usable at F4 and up it sounds like a pretty useless lens to me if that would be the case. Also I rather look at example photos then at charts. Only charts I might want to know are Aperture sharpness photos that you see sometimes.

MTF charts dont say anything on how the actual photo looks like. Well maybe in theory but not in real life.

There was this guy on youtube reviewing a lens and rambling on about MTF charts without taking any photos and based its conclusion on that. The guy was pretty much flamed for that particular video.

There is not much chance on testing lenses yourself anyway if you are consumer. So i just look at pictures of other people instead.

I Also dont like all the Sigma/Tokina cheapskates stories that tell you I bought this sigma and it broke after 7 months so now its in repair for 4 months and i went with a Nikkor lens now.

What makes a person buy a particular lens? Well, there are lots of reasons. I suppose the basic reason is that somebody wants that particular focal length/range. They may look at reviews and consider the build quality, price, sharpness etc. They may want something that complements their existing lens collection or a lens that has particular attributes, features. The most over-rated reason is supposed sharpness. Any lens at any focal length is only sharp at certain points in the frame where the camera has focussed. Any elements further away or nearer than that focal plane will not be sharp. Full stop! For all elements in a frame to be tack sharp then they must all be equi-distant from the sensor. Even shooting a chart on the wall will not give you that because the corners will be further from the sensor than the centre of the chart. Reviewers major on sharpness because it is easy to test. Given a minimum level of excellence then other lens features are equally if not more important, handling, durability etc.
For that reason I give a lot of reviews a read but view them with a healthy scepticism. A £1,000 lens may be sharper than a £300 lens but how much sharper and over how much of the frame? Not enough to warrant the excessive cost in my view unless you are a pro or just like having the most expensive gear to be one-up on other photographers. Supposedly!

_________________
Nikon D300 D80 D40 18-55mm 18-70mm 18-135mm 55-200mm 18-200mm 28mm 2.8f 50mm 1.8f 85mm 1.8f
Panasonic DMCFZ28 Slik Pro 700DX

I know a little about a lot, a lot about little and everything about nothing.

Well spoken Dave16. Thats why I also mentioned to have a look at a nikkor 16-85 lens. Of course the nikkor 17-55 is better but at twice or triple the price.

It also depends a lot on the sensor of your Camera if it is capable of showing the details/differences. I am sure you will see it on a Nikon D7000 but if you have like a D60 or a D90 then it is less noticable maybe.

I am always a bit sceptic about third party lenses. Too many "my sigma broke down after only 7 months, and now I bought a nikkor lens instead"-stories.