Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 vs 18-55 kit lens?

This is yet another gear question so bear with me or avert your eyes if you're weary of these types of threads.

First off.. damn this hobby, I thought computers was an expensive hobby. I laugh at that notion now. On the the point. I'm itching to the replace my kit lens but honestly can't tell if that's just "I need a new lens fever" or if it'll really show REAL results. My current setup is the 5100 + 35mm nikon prime + 70-300mm. I feel like I have ranges covered at this point and low light/indoors with the 35mm but I'm yearning for something w/ a wider aperture to replace the kit lens for obvious reasons (shallow depth of field and low light) . I'm curious if anyone here (soooo much respect for the knowledge here) has spent meaningful time with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or even has it in their bag and I'd love your thoughts on it.

Thanks ahead of time.

Rgds,

-C

I have 1000s of shots with my 17-50 f/2.8 built in motor no VC. I've owned many lenses and I honestly put this one right up there for "Bang for the Buck". Fast sure focus and deadly sharp. The build quality is mediocre but look at the price. Optically it's an amazing lens.

The Tamron is a good economical alternate to get a f2.8 lens. It is a little noisy when focusing compared to the Nikon f2.8 zoom lens and can sometimes hunt in more difficult lighting situation especially indoor.

The VC is a more updated lens that I have not tried yet but it might be worth the extra money.

Having a faster aperture lens helps out a lot especially indoors. You know this already with your kit lens once you zoom in and at f5.6, you'll need a stronger flash or lower down your shutter speed just to get a lower ISO and cleaner images.

Lens itch never ends so welcome to the club.

From your post I am assuming you have the kit lens already, yes? So the Tamron purchase would be more an upgrade to someone currently unused than something filling a "hole" in your camera bag, right? Given that you have the 35mm I am also assuming that the Tamron would see the most use when the 35mm isn't wide enough, so I'm guessing ggtuazon's point about f/5.6 at the high end may be moot since you'd be living in the f/3.4-4 range indoors.

I cannot give specific advice on the Tamron, but have a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and can vouch for the fact that it's awful nice to have the brighter lens when you want it (for me it's more a depth of field than available light thing). In your position the question I would ask is whether or not I want to make my next investment in the "replacement" category, or use it to stretch my range. When I got into this I never thought that I would ever fall for ultra-wide angle lenses, but I found with the cropped sensor of my D7000 & D90 that I was never quite satisfied with what I could get into the frame - particularly outdoors. I saw shots a friend took on holiday with a Sigma 8-16mm that convinced me I might want to try it out and it's been a go-to lens in many situations. Now, I'm not necessarily recommending that lens to you (it doesn't do "bright" at f/4.5-5.6), only prompting you to consider what might open more photographic avenues for you. Perhaps a 12-24mm instead?

I know I've probably helped you less and made your decision more confusing, if anything. But where would this place be without enablers? LOL