Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
17-50(55) 2.8 lenses- which to get, from a cost-benefit pov?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rasmus" data-source="post: 69153" data-attributes="member: 8553"><p>I'm considering expanding my arsenal with a wide to normal zoom, and rather than getting the 18-55 kit lens, i'd go for one of the low light capable f/2.8's</p><p></p><p>Price is a bit of a concern generally speaking though, the sigma and tamron versions run at a price roughly equal to 500 us dollars, while the nikkor version is 2000 dollars, so quite a noticelable difference.</p><p></p><p>So, given that money is a factor to a certain degree(i'd rather use those 1500 on something else ideally) - would you say the nikkor is worth the price comparing to the other 2? for price comparison purposes, an average danish salary is around 2700-3000 us dollars after taxes, so 2000 is noticeable.</p><p></p><p>Other than the money factor, how much better is the nikkor in your experience?</p><p></p><p>I'm tempted to go for the tamron VC version, but try and convince me that the nikkor is a better buy <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Rasmus</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rasmus, post: 69153, member: 8553"] I'm considering expanding my arsenal with a wide to normal zoom, and rather than getting the 18-55 kit lens, i'd go for one of the low light capable f/2.8's Price is a bit of a concern generally speaking though, the sigma and tamron versions run at a price roughly equal to 500 us dollars, while the nikkor version is 2000 dollars, so quite a noticelable difference. So, given that money is a factor to a certain degree(i'd rather use those 1500 on something else ideally) - would you say the nikkor is worth the price comparing to the other 2? for price comparison purposes, an average danish salary is around 2700-3000 us dollars after taxes, so 2000 is noticeable. Other than the money factor, how much better is the nikkor in your experience? I'm tempted to go for the tamron VC version, but try and convince me that the nikkor is a better buy :) Rasmus [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
17-50(55) 2.8 lenses- which to get, from a cost-benefit pov?
Top