Is the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 a worthwhile upgrade from an 18-55mm kit lens?
Asked 4/15/2011
7 views
2 answers
0
I shoot a Nikon D90 with the 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR kit lenses, and I’m considering upgrading the wide-to-normal zoom range for an upcoming event. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II (non-VC) seems to fit my budget, but I’m unsure whether it’s a meaningful step up from the kit lens or if it will feel like more of the same. I’m mainly interested in whether the constant f/2.8 aperture and overall image quality make it a solid upgrade, especially for indoor/event shooting. More generally, are third-party lenses like this dependable long-term choices?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
4
I like mine a lot for indoor-shooting of parties. Nice and bright, have to step down a bit for max sharpness, but even then it will be brighter than your current 5.6 at the long end of 50mm.
At a wedding I saw it been used by the professional hired there for the people-shooting too (note 1: it was our wedding-photographer too, but we weren't the one who recommended him; note 2: he really wanted to have mine, because his looked looked a bit worn ;) ). Mine and his being sans VR, because VR does not help with the other people moving (stills of the surrounding best be done before night).
Generally I think that third-party-lenses can be a nice compromise between high prices and quality - and sometimes even the better choice if you don't find a prime fitting your niche.
Originally by user2317. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user2317
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes — based on the community feedback, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is generally considered a real upgrade over an 18-55mm kit lens, especially for indoor and event use.
The biggest advantage is the constant f/2.8 aperture, which gives you much more light at the long end than a typical kit lens. That helps with lower-light shooting and subject isolation. Multiple answers also note that the lens is quite sharp, especially stopped down slightly, and performs very well for the price.
The non-stabilized version can still make sense for events, because stabilization only helps camera shake, not subject movement. For people indoors, the wider aperture is often more useful than VR/VC.
As for third-party lenses: yes, they can absolutely be solid long-term options. The shared experience here is that this Tamron is a strong value lens and not just a cheap substitute. The main tradeoff mentioned is that it may have some downsides in handling or refinement compared with more expensive brand-name options, but optically it’s widely regarded as very good.
So if your goal is a better standard zoom on a crop-body Nikon, this is a sensible and worthwhile step up.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC vs non-VC: is stabilization worth it, and are they upgrades over an 18-55mm kit lens?
Which is sharper: Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC?
How much more light does a constant f/2.8 zoom give compared with an 18-55mm kit lens?
Best portrait lens options for a Nikon D90 under $1000
For indoor low-light shots of moving kids, should I upgrade my flash, lens, or camera body first?