A&P Tamon 17-50 or Nikkor 17-55mm?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by ihkskim, Sep 24, 2007.

  1. ihkskim

    ihkskim OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cerritos, CA
  2. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    I know on the canon side of things the tamron is a damn fine lens
     
  3. fatass

    fatass New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    i own the nikon 17-55, it's a great piece but sometimes i feel it could be sharper. anyways read bythom's review on it
     
  4. Blair

    Blair New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    8,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    the tammy has treated me very well and i have not had a bit of trouble with it. yes it is not as burly as the 17-55; but at less than have the cost i dont really expect it.
     
  5. 1992 240SX

    1992 240SX New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
    Ive shot with the 17-55 and from what I've heard the main difference is just how well it's built. While the Tamron is cheaper, the Nikkor is a beast and will prob. take much more of a beating.
     
  6. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    im sure you wouldn't tell much of a difference between the tammy and nikon. i have the tammy and Im happy with it. the only thing I can see different is that the nikon is IF i think
     
  7. s40Strib

    s40Strib New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Atlanta
    i have the 17-55 and i have a great copy...sharp at 2.8 through 11...then it tails off. the range is perfect the build is an 9/10...i dunno i heart mine...
     
  8. SugarCoatedSour

    SugarCoatedSour Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    53,663
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Glenview, IL
    I have a 17-50 and it works great. Between the two, image quality won't be significantly different. Expect the extra cost to go to better build quality, better AF, and quieter AF.
     
  9. ihkskim

    ihkskim OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cerritos, CA
    well i care more about image quality.. loud or faster AF doesn't really bother me. just wondering if paying more than 2x the cost justifies getting the Nikkor
     
  10. 1992 240SX

    1992 240SX New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
    It really depends on how you're gonna be using it. If you're gonna baby your equipment and never really use it under harsh conditions then I'd say save the money and get the Tamron...I think it's be pretty hard to tell which lens it came from looking at two similar images but where it's gonna make a difference is how you use it in field.
     
  11. isaac86hatch

    isaac86hatch This thread sucks

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    27,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    Get the tammy, you won't be disappointed.
     
  12. ihkskim

    ihkskim OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cerritos, CA
    i found a deal for the Nikkor 17-55 w/ Hoya UV and HMC CIrc. Polarizer for $850 used. Picked it up today, can't wait to test it out. looks brand new
     

Share This Page