[milobars]

Hi guys. I have a D70 and I am finding that my trusty 28-300mm all purpose Tamron lens just isn't wide enough for the digital format (it was bought for my F60). Has anyone used the 17-55mm Tamron for Nikon? How fast is the focus and whats the general performance like. You can tell me about any other wide angle lens you've used too. I love my Tamron, which I think gives me a much better shot then the Sigmas or Nikkors I have.

Thanks.

[Peted]

Hi Milobars.

How much do you want to spend??? Sigma have a nice 18-55mm (or is it 18-50) F2.8, very nice and quite fast. Apparently the standard kit Nikon 18-whatever is pretty good but not so fast, lots of people have the Sigma 18-50mm lens and get really good results with it, I use one on a Pentax DS (same sensor as D70) and I find it a fairly forgiving lens, mind you I am saving up for a Sigma 18-50mm F2.8, this the main size I am shooting so it makes sense to me to spend most of my money there. I am on a budget so need to make sure every cent I spend gets best possible value.

Cheers.

Pete D

[milobars]

The question really isn't "how much do I want to spend" but rather "what am I paying for?". Prices are as follows for the 17mm-35mm 2.8 (which is what I am looking at). Nikon - $2973 Tamron $806 Sigma $1056. Are we really going to notice the difference?

Milobars.

[Peted]

A purist will tell you that you "must" buy the Nikon at any cost.

Common sense will tell you that the Nikon is not 3 times better than the others.

For the extra 5-10-20% improvement is the Nikon worth it to you? Thats what matters.

Are you doing this for a living, do you have lots of cash and cost just doesn't matter?

Have a look at the review of the Sigma on this site, it stacks up pretty well.

[slejhamer]

Among those 17-35mm lenses you mention, neither the Sigma nor the Tamron lenses are constant f/2.8 through the focal range, while the Nikon is. Constant aperture zooms are more expensive to manufacture, and that is reflected in the price difference.

I've owned a Tamron XR Di lens (28-75 f/2.8) and thought it was very good. I've had poor results with an older Sigma, but the latest versions of their EX line look very good as well.

[Peted]

Among those lenses you mention, neither the Sigma nor the Tamron lenses are constant f/2.8 through the focal range, while the Nikon is. Constant aperture zooms are more expensive to manufacture, and that is reflected in the price difference.

I've owned a Tamron XR Di lens (28-75 f/2.8) and thought it was very good. I've had poor results with an older Sigma, but the latest versions of their EX line look very good as well.

Sigma do make a 18-50mm lens that is constant F2.8 and it is available around the AU$600-700 range.

http://www.shuttertalk.com/articles/sigm.../index.php

[Toad]

I am a NIkon guy and I own only one aftermarket lens - the Tamron 90mmDi macro. It is absolutely outstanding - that may not be enough to base a "across-the-board" endorsement of Tamron on - but I can vouch for the fact that they are capable of making excellent lenses.

[shuttertalk]

Hm, always a tough choosing between value and the "10% extra"...

Don't forget to read some user reviews of the lenses:
http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/len...28crx.aspx

[Peted]

I am a NIkon guy and I own only one aftermarket lens - the Tamron 90mmDi macro. It is absolutely outstanding - that may not be enough to base a "across-the-board" endorsement of Tamron on - but I can vouch for the fact that they are capable of making excellent lenses.

Did you use the Macro lens for film or only with digital?

[Toad]

I only use it for film right now - but as my plan includes purchasing a Nikon DSLR, I made sure that this lens was fully compatible with digital.

[Peted]

Cool, I was wondering how much difference in handling you may notice going from SLR to D-SLR with the crop factor. With all the talk there is with the 50mm primes being a "must have", I think they are now not so usable and you need to look at something like a 35mm or less otherwise you will miss half of what you are trying to shot, particularly if space is tight, I have a 28mm F2.8, it is quite good but with the reasonable 18-50mm zoom I find that I don't need it that much as long as I keep the F stop in the middle region.

[Toad]

Yes - that is an issue going from SLR to DSLR - but in the case of the Tamron - my 90mm will be equivalent to a 135mm lens which just extends my reach when taking pictures of critters.

The multiplier is great on the long lens side - but is a dead drag on the wide angle side - the only available Nikon lenses for digital that are equivalent to a 24mm or better lens cost a fortune - and for the most part - they aren't film compatible.