Sunday, February 21, 2010

Tamron 17-50mm vs Nikon 17-55mm

Tamron 17-50mm vs Nikon 17-55mm

Tamron DiII SP AF 17-50mm F/2,8 XR LD Aspherical (IF)

Nikon 17-55 vs Tamron 17-50

Tamron 17-50mm tested VS Nikon 17-55mm dpreview

Nikon 17-55 vs Tamron 17-50...Am I crazy?

nikon 17-55mm vs tamron 17-50mm test


1 comment:

  1. Dilema: makroobjektiv Sigma nebo Tamron?,3237195,3237195

    Everyone seems to always forget...

    Nikon 85 3.5 I agree with Danel. If you want a macro lens in the 90mm range, the new Nikon 85 3.5 has gotten really good reviews, and looks interesting. The thing I like about all the Nikkor macro in addition of VR, they have internal focus, so they don't change lengths when you focus closer. From a usability standpoint, this is more desirable than the Tamron 90 or Sigma 105. It does not feature nano crystal coating like the other two FF Nikkor macros.
    The Tamron 90, is about the same price as the Nikon 85, and is as good, probably better.
    The Nikkor 60, may be too short for you, but it should not be over-looked as it is an awesome lens, supposedly better optically than the 105 VR.
    See here for a great review of the 60:
    Tokina 100 2.8 Macro - This lens has a much better build quality than the Tamron and is extremely sharp, and is less expensive. This might be the way to go if you absolutely need a longish macro lens and you don't want to spend a ton of $$$.
    Tamron 60 has gotten great reviews and tested very high, but again may be too short, lacking sufficient working distance for the subjects you want to shoot.
    Sigma 105, I have never liked this lens, but is a very sharp, solid macro lens. Like the Tamron 90 it's lens barrel increases in size to focus close.
    Anyway, it is hard to buy a bad macro lens. Some of the older ones don't go 1:1 and they should be avoided, but most of the modern macro lenses are truly excellent.