File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
What does /p/ think about the 17-50mm f/2.8?
>> Anonymous
it is an excellent lens
>> Anonymous
Whichever body you're using, this baby's still a better bang for the buck than canon/nikon counterparts which sell for more than twice the price.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
only faggots who can't afford the real versions say that

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G5Camera SoftwareACD Systems ?????imum Lens Aperturef/2.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size7.19 - 28.81 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.00Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:09:19 12:00:41Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/5.6Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.19 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height599RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeManualFocus TypeManualMetering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed Rating50SharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeManualDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeExternal FlashCompression SettingSuperfineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance0.330 mFlash Bias-0.38 EVWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed128Image Number619-1993
>> Anonymous
Optical quality is good, build quality is very poor. Tokina ATX lenses are the closest to the Nikon/Canon equivalents, Sigma second, and Tamron a very distant third.
>> Anonymous
Not to mention Tamron focusing sucks shit.
>> Anonymous
I think this was Heavyweather's main lens, pre-Ricoh, so you might want to grab hold of him in some thread.

Go on Flickr, search for "Tamron 17-50" or whatever, and decide if you dig the look of the lens. That's always helpful.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
It's the poor man's standard lens. The 28-75 is better optically but you lose your wide but it will work on full frame if you get one later.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBELCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 2.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2005:03:06 11:24:20Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/4.0ISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias-1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height682RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Better than Sigma 18-50/2.8, plus Tamron doesn't fail as hard at QC, so there's less chance of getting a defective lens.

Worse than Canon's and Nikon's 17-55/2.8, but only slightly, and still a decent alternative considering how fucking overpriced Nikon's lens is.

The build quality is disappointing for a f/2.8 zoom, as mentioned, but it's no worse than your usual kit lenses.
>> Anonymous
"This Di lens is currently the most compact and lightest in the history of fast zoom lenses. Its compactness makes it look and feel like an ordinary standard zoom lens, yet provides the versatility that a fast constant maximum aperture offers and will definitely reshape photographic horizons."

lulz, B&H needs to update that shit, smallest fast zoom, lol

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/284402-REG/Tamron_AF09N700_28_75mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html
>> Anonymous
>>153308

Not everyone has $1500 to spend on a 17-55 f/2.8.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Still is my main lens, and we use it extensively at the Texan as our main wide-to-normal zoom, with the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 being our main telephoto zoom.

I highly endorse it. Check out my photostream on flickr for lots of examples of images made with this lens.
>> Anonymous
I am currently deciding between this tamron lens and the nikon one... I'm still saving... I have enough cash to buy the tamron though.
>> Anonymous
>>153496
Get the Tamron. You won't be able to tell the difference in 99% of the shots - Nikon is a great lens, but it's not the holy grail of standard zooms, contrary to what some nikonfags may want you to believe.
>> Anonymous
>>153442

canon's 17-55 28 is $1,000 and you get IS to boot

so uh, gtfo
>> Anonymous
>>153442

It's $1,200 not $1,500
>> Anonymous
>>153521
This doesn't change the overall picture. It's still $200 more than Canon equivalent, $500 more than Pentax, $800 more than Sigma/Tamron, $800 more than Olympus and $300 more than Leica (the latter two have slightly different zoom range and aperture, but serve the same purpose). Also, the lack of VR.
>> Anonymous
>>153538

Doesn't matter. It's the best zoom Nikon makes.
>> Anonymous
>>153542
14-24 is the best zoom Nikon makes, which also has no comparable equivalents in other systems.

17-55 is just a very good standard zoom which for some reason costs more than similarly good lenses from other manufacturers. And lacks VR, which EVERYONE EXCEPT NIKON offers in this lens category.
>> Anonymous
The Tamrom 17-25/f 2.8 was the first lent I got for my 400D (Rebel XTi) body and I still appreciate it a lot. I think the focus is quite loud though.
>> Anonymous
>>153544And lacks VR, which EVERYONE EXCEPT NIKON offers in this lens category.

Uh, no. You're wrong.

Canon is the only one with a standard zoom at 2.8 with IS.
>> Anonymous
>>153550The Tamrom 17-25

i hope it's fucking awesome with that kind of range
>> Anonymous
>>153560
Leica's standard zoom has IS too, and Pentax and Olympus have body-based IS. (Leica and Olympus standard zooms are a slightly longer and aren't constant-aperture, though)
>> Anonymous
>>153563

the leica 14-50 isn't 2.8 through the range

sensor shift != lens IS, fact of the matter is, Canon has the only standard focal range zoom with a constant 2.8 and IS on it.
>> Anonymous
>>153575
>the leica 14-50 isn't 2.8 through the range
Thanks, Cpt. Obvious. Now read the post you're replying to.

>sensor shift != lens IS
Yes. But since the end result is pretty much the same, Pentax + DA 16-50/2.8 = Canon + EF 17-55/2.8. And poor Nikonfags have to choose either VR or wide aperture, but not both at once.
>> Anonymous
>>153583

nope, you're wrong
>> Anonymous
>>153587
NO U
>> Anonymous
>>15354414-24 is the best zoom Nikon makes

ROFL

yeah, 24mm makes it a real winner
>> Anonymous
OP here, just in case, i'm the pickle-minded 15year old nikonfag. Im buying the 17-50mm as a zoom, since i went cheap and just grabbed a 50mm f/1.8 when I bought mine.

>>153463

What I wanted to hear, thanks heavyweather.

in b4 gtfo
>> Anonymous
...

you made 5 threads on 4chan, 3 on RFD, asked about D80 vs. D300, said D40 was for soccer moms, asked about D80 vs. D40, then decided on a D40+18-70, asked about how to get money from the bank, chickened out from walking around with $900, bought the D40, realized it sucked ass, returned it for a D80 with a 50mm, now going to buy a 17-50

holy fuck, this is real life son, there aren't undo buttons
>> Anonymous
>>153766

I swear you're that guy who always replies right after I say that i'm the underage faggot.

I'm way over the 2 week returns, no undo-ing here. I'm picking which zoom to get and I heard a lot of good things about the 17-50mm. I don't see any problems with picking a zoom.
>> Anonymous
>>153769

i didn't say anything about the tamron

just that you're an undecisive fuck
>> Anonymous
>>153775

I was, not anymore. Why are you bringing it up anyway? So what if I was an indecisive fuck? Get over it dude.
>> M/A !n21TE7QU8U
>>153782
oh hai.
Indecisive?
These are all reasonable options, reading your story i think it might.. ahem. help you. Or something.
-Sigma 17-70 mm F/2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM Nikon
-Sigma 24-60 mm F/2.8 EX DG ASP Nikon-D AF
-Sigma 28-105 mm F/3.8-5.6 ASF IF UC III Nikon-D AF
-Sigma 18-125 mm F/3.5-5.6 DC Digital Nikon-D AF
-Nikon AF-S DX 17-55 mm F/2.8 G IF-ED
-Nikon AF-S DX 18-70 mm F/3.5-4.5 G IF-ED


TAKE YOUR PICK.
I would suggest buying them ALL then returning ALL of them and buy some other lens.
>> Anonymous
>>153793

I just need a fast walk-around lens. No irony needed.

Also, >What does /p/ think about the 17-50mm f/2.8?

I'm just asking about the 17-50mm, how it performs, prons and cons, the works.
>> Anonymous
>>153801

only poor people buy it
>> M/A !n21TE7QU8U
>>153801
Pros: nice range, tho a Nikon 18-55 AF-S DX is cheaper and better. 2.8
Cons:Probably shitloads of distortion due to HUEG glass due to being a 2.8. PLASTIC MOUNT.

Just buy a kitlens. 18-55 3.5-5.6 will do just fine. And it'll save you probably somewhere around $300.
The Tamron is $400 or something, the Nikon is somewhere around $80.
>> Anonymous
>>153801
Get a normal or wide prime. You'll learn faster with that and the 50.
>> Anonymous
>>153810

worst troll ever or retard

i say both
>> Anonymous
>>153813

Using the 50mm for a couple weeks now, I found out that I really need the wide end. The widest prime for nikon is the 20mm f/2.8, which is priced at $600 (?) while the tamron is at $450. Although the 20mm is clearly superior(sharpness, distortion, blah), I still would pick versatility, hence the 17-50mm.

And I'm underage, I prefer walking around with just one lens with me. Big camera bags aren't that "ideal" for me. I normally just toss my d80 in whichever bag im using.
>> Anonymous
>>153825
1. Stick your fifty in a pocket or something.
2. Sigma makes a 20mm lens.
3. How do you know how wide you need if you only have the 50mm? A 28 (2.8 or Sigma 1.8) or Sigma 30/1.4 is still very appreciably wider than a 50mm.
4. Versatility is really overrated. Before you start worrying about doing lots, do well.
5. Let me reemphasize three. Stop buying shit you're uncertain about.
>> Anonymous
6. Also, for most people, a normal or wide lens ought to be faster than their medium tele. Most dark places are also close quarters, and it seems you're looking for a lens to get more use out of.
>> Anonymous
>>153835

I had the 18-70mm for a couple weeks.
>> Anonymous
>>153507
how about the nikon 24-70 f2.8 vs. the tamron or sigma ones ?
>> Anonymous
>>153913

there's a reason the nikon is 4x the price of the sigma
>> Anonymous
>>153948
I know there is a difference, but is it enough to justify spending 4x than the sigma and tamron ? This lens would be my workhorse... if I get it that is...
>> Anonymous
i have the 17-50mm and i use it stays in my 30d most of the time, except in studio shots.
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>153967
unless your on FF i wouldnt bother with it.

youd be better off with the aforementioned tamron 17-50, sigma 18-50 and others. at least then youll have a wide angle at a decent price.

if you are on FF then obviously you can afford the nikon version ;) if not, try out the sigma/tamron versions.
>> Anonymous
>>154014
The Nikon lens is for DX-format SLRs only.
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>154016
oh, i meant the nikon 24-70