Tamron lens for D90?
Hi..I'm getting my very first DSLR, a Nikon D90 this weekend (can hardly sleep) and I wonder if it's a good decision to drop the kit lens which is the 18-105mm VR and replace it with the Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 instead as a walk around lens.
Thanks!
Post Edited (11:49h)
Thanks!
Post Edited (11:49h)
If your only going to have 1 lens.
I would still consider going for the Nikon 18-105 VR lens. OK, so its not a f2.8 lens, but it gives you a wider range & also has vibration reduction built in... so in low light even at f3.5-5.6 you should still have sharp images.
With the f2.8 tamron.. you could possibly try more creative images at f2.8, but the quality of the lens might be inferior to that of the Nikon. I recently bought a Tokina 28-80 f2.8 & I still prefer using my old kit lens.
Is there a big price difference?
I would still consider going for the Nikon 18-105 VR lens. OK, so its not a f2.8 lens, but it gives you a wider range & also has vibration reduction built in... so in low light even at f3.5-5.6 you should still have sharp images.
With the f2.8 tamron.. you could possibly try more creative images at f2.8, but the quality of the lens might be inferior to that of the Nikon. I recently bought a Tokina 28-80 f2.8 & I still prefer using my old kit lens.
Is there a big price difference?
I recently purchased the Tamron 28-75 2.8 lens and am more than happy with it. But I have to agree with Daren about the versatility of the 18-105 VR. For your first DSLR and lens it will give you the most options. If you do a lot of indoor photography with low light or need better DOF then you can save for a 2.8 or faster lens when you are sure exactly what your needs are as your experience increases.
Enjoy the new camera!!
Enjoy the new camera!!
As this will be my first DSLR then I'm gonna start with just one lens and save up for another.
I think I'm actually gonna do more outdoor than indoor photography. The 18-105mm is about $150 cheaper than the Tamron.
Post Edited (6:21h)
I think I'm actually gonna do more outdoor than indoor photography. The 18-105mm is about $150 cheaper than the Tamron.
Post Edited (6:21h)
I purchased a D40 about 2 years ago and the lens kit was alright, but a little too restrictive. I wanted a greater zoom lens and purchased the lens AF-S DX VR Zoom- NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED. I liked the lens but it never really produced the crisp sharp images I was hoping for.
I purchaed a walk around lens AF-S DX VR Zoom- NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II and really like it. Much better than the kit lens. It cost a little more, but it is a well build solid lens. The images are sharp and overall fun to use.
Today I broke my 200mm zoom lens. It was 90 degrees fahrenheit and super high humidity; not a great day in the tropical forest, I mean FLorida :) I dont treat my equipment hard, but it must follow me outdoors.
The auto focus refuses to focus. The server motor is build into the lens and needs to be repaired. It pays to buy a sturdy lens! I missed an opportunity to get good shots of 2 otters. They move around all the time and manually focusing becomes tedious.
My point is, look at how well the lens is made. Everyone wants a 2.8 fstop, but it is somewhat unlikely that you will take many pictures at that setting unless you are shooting in low light without flash or night photography. Most lenses come with a plastic body to reduce weight, but the base should be solid and preferably made out of metal not plastic. That is unfortunately a trend with the low to mid range lenses.
I am thinking about replacing the 200mm zoom with the Nikkor 300mm zoom. Did anyone use it before? Any advise?
Post Edited (4:04h)
I purchaed a walk around lens AF-S DX VR Zoom- NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II and really like it. Much better than the kit lens. It cost a little more, but it is a well build solid lens. The images are sharp and overall fun to use.
Today I broke my 200mm zoom lens. It was 90 degrees fahrenheit and super high humidity; not a great day in the tropical forest, I mean FLorida :) I dont treat my equipment hard, but it must follow me outdoors.
The auto focus refuses to focus. The server motor is build into the lens and needs to be repaired. It pays to buy a sturdy lens! I missed an opportunity to get good shots of 2 otters. They move around all the time and manually focusing becomes tedious.
My point is, look at how well the lens is made. Everyone wants a 2.8 fstop, but it is somewhat unlikely that you will take many pictures at that setting unless you are shooting in low light without flash or night photography. Most lenses come with a plastic body to reduce weight, but the base should be solid and preferably made out of metal not plastic. That is unfortunately a trend with the low to mid range lenses.
I am thinking about replacing the 200mm zoom with the Nikkor 300mm zoom. Did anyone use it before? Any advise?
Post Edited (4:04h)
I think the zoom range of 17-50mm with fast f/ 2.8 aperture is a wonderful first choice. In my own editorial travel photography I shoot the majority of my images in that focal length range.
Never be afraid of third party lenses. Leica’s first zoom lenses were designed and engineered by Tokina. The famous 2.0 lens in the popular Canon G –series was a Tamron lens. Which also was used by other camera brands.
Whatever lens you buy, use the camera so much that it becomes a part of you. There are no shortcuts in photography; only hard training will give better pictures. Just look at sports athletes and performers like musicians and dancers – exercising repeatedly to get to the top and to stay sharp.
Never be afraid of third party lenses. Leica’s first zoom lenses were designed and engineered by Tokina. The famous 2.0 lens in the popular Canon G –series was a Tamron lens. Which also was used by other camera brands.
Whatever lens you buy, use the camera so much that it becomes a part of you. There are no shortcuts in photography; only hard training will give better pictures. Just look at sports athletes and performers like musicians and dancers – exercising repeatedly to get to the top and to stay sharp.
Good idea. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a decent lens.
03.03.11, 17:11
Post 8 of 10
Hi,
I bought yesterday Tamron 17-50mm and I can tell that it is very good lens. Acctualy, I changed my Nikkor 18-105 kit lens for it. And there is no need to compare that lens to any kit lenses that nikkor made, becouse, it is KIT. First of all, 18-105 VR is very dark lens and quite unsharp. It is good lens only if you have sunny shine day or you don't mind using flash. Tamron, on the other side, provide much more light for all weather conditions. f2.8 is very high aperture and just perfect number for travel and experiments. 17-50mm is perfect range for city and landscape as well. Tamron is solid, heavy, with great glass.
You have great body (d90), so even on the very grey day you can raise ISO even to 1000 and shot photos all day long without any risks that you will take "noisy" pics. If you take NIkkor 18-105, be prepared to hold ISO quite offten at 2000. Believe me, its very personal experience :)
My advice: take Tamron. It's more expensive, but very reliable lens. With Nikkor kit you will regret very soon.
Best wishes. Excuse my english
I bought yesterday Tamron 17-50mm and I can tell that it is very good lens. Acctualy, I changed my Nikkor 18-105 kit lens for it. And there is no need to compare that lens to any kit lenses that nikkor made, becouse, it is KIT. First of all, 18-105 VR is very dark lens and quite unsharp. It is good lens only if you have sunny shine day or you don't mind using flash. Tamron, on the other side, provide much more light for all weather conditions. f2.8 is very high aperture and just perfect number for travel and experiments. 17-50mm is perfect range for city and landscape as well. Tamron is solid, heavy, with great glass.
You have great body (d90), so even on the very grey day you can raise ISO even to 1000 and shot photos all day long without any risks that you will take "noisy" pics. If you take NIkkor 18-105, be prepared to hold ISO quite offten at 2000. Believe me, its very personal experience :)
My advice: take Tamron. It's more expensive, but very reliable lens. With Nikkor kit you will regret very soon.
Best wishes. Excuse my english
The Tamron 2.8 / 17-50 should be a very good lens on the D90. I don't own it, but in the German fotocommunity channels they are all very happy with it and everybody recommends it.
The D90 has the older CMOS chip, see: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/36
Good ISO range will help with low light, but noise is marked above 1600 ISO. if your going to capture in JPG only, I'd stick with the Tamron, as the D90's in-camera JPEG compression is notably over soft.
With the extra two stops through the whole focal range, the Tamron will give you a way out in poor light, where the Nikon will push you into higher ISO settings and the world of digital noise and colour aberrations. Neither will you be able to produce good DoF bouquet with the Nikon as sweetly as with the Tamron.
I'd stick with the Tamron lens, as the budget Nikon lenses, (if it has a plastic mount ring, then the 18-105 is one of them) are built from very poor quality, we were always having to send them off for repair/replacement of the whole mount because the lugs snap off, and with Nikor parts replacement for budget range, it could take a few weeks and cost around £150.00 a pop. On top of this, the whole construction was flimsy and wears out very quickly and the lens focus looses accuracy and resolve. Even from new, the performance is poor, see: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nik ... _afs_n15/4
The 18-200+ lenses from most manufacturers all suffer from over-reach and poor performance, against the wide to mediums and the medium to tele, particularly those with slow maximum apertures like f3.5 or continuous focal range apertures.
Get yourself a 70 - 200 later maybe.
Good ISO range will help with low light, but noise is marked above 1600 ISO. if your going to capture in JPG only, I'd stick with the Tamron, as the D90's in-camera JPEG compression is notably over soft.
With the extra two stops through the whole focal range, the Tamron will give you a way out in poor light, where the Nikon will push you into higher ISO settings and the world of digital noise and colour aberrations. Neither will you be able to produce good DoF bouquet with the Nikon as sweetly as with the Tamron.
I'd stick with the Tamron lens, as the budget Nikon lenses, (if it has a plastic mount ring, then the 18-105 is one of them) are built from very poor quality, we were always having to send them off for repair/replacement of the whole mount because the lugs snap off, and with Nikor parts replacement for budget range, it could take a few weeks and cost around £150.00 a pop. On top of this, the whole construction was flimsy and wears out very quickly and the lens focus looses accuracy and resolve. Even from new, the performance is poor, see: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nik ... _afs_n15/4
The 18-200+ lenses from most manufacturers all suffer from over-reach and poor performance, against the wide to mediums and the medium to tele, particularly those with slow maximum apertures like f3.5 or continuous focal range apertures.
Get yourself a 70 - 200 later maybe.