Two Similar Lenses - What's the Difference?

This past week, my daughter was using a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II LD lens while I was using the more expensive Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 G ED-IF AFS-DX lens to photograph Navy Pier. We both had the lenses mounted on similar Fuji S5 Pro camera bodies set for the identical setting.

Our goal was to capture Navy Pier artisitically and to see how our shots compared. Overall, she did very well for someone who has had little formal training. She has a pretty good eye. Perhaps that's from seeing all the photos I shoot every week and hearing me describe which images are good and which are not. Anyway, while comparing our shots, I noticed that all of my images seemed to have a slightly richer color quality to them than hers. Although the images seemed almost equally as sharp, the Nikon lens did appear slightly sharper as well.

This is not to say that the Tamron lens did not do a good job. I'd say without images to do a direct comparison against, I think it would be very hard for anyone to tell the difference. It's very close. And for the price difference, I think the average person would have to agree that the Tamron offers a lot for the money.

Doing a quick search for current prices, the Tamron lens sells for approximately $439 whereas the Nikon lens sells for $1200. That's a big price difference. Is it worth it? For the pro, yes. For the average consumer, perhaps not.

I had purchased the Tamron as a backup lens to use whenever I did not want to lug around the big heavy Nikon. For the most part, I'd say it's one of the best lenses for the money. It compares favorably to the big Nikon lens at a fraction of the cost. But if I had to do critical work in which I needed the absolute best quality image, I'd be grabbing for the Nikon lens to do that work.

If you want a high quality lens at a lower price, buy the Tamron lens. Buy the Nikon if you need a sharper image with better contrast and better color and price is no object. You can't go wrong with either lens, however.