Why not; As I said, there're pro wedding photographers using it, I think kytz also mention one pro photographer using it. Anyway, it's not that bad until it's not usable, just that you need to learn how to utilize your tools; Better tools, surely helps, save time, trouble, hassle and the disappointment (e.g. getting out of focus shots due to inaccuracy, not able to capture the moment).

As for 16-85 and 18-70, as I reply to isepunye posting, for people looking for f/2.8 equivalent, they would not have look here. Anyway, nobody is saying the 3rd party is superior, just an option/alternative.
I think the debate is in "proper discussion" manner, it good for information sharing and clearing any misunderstanding. In non-malaysian forum, it's very normal especially long replies. Honestly, I start internet from those forums, so I'm already use to it; just try not to make it into personal issue which tends to happen in forums. I would see this is positive and constructive.

Anyway, actually, for 3rd party, if you read reviews around, there're few 3rd party that were highly recommended.
1. Sigma 50mm f/1.4
2. Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (You can read most reviews will give high recommendation on this)
3. Tamron SP90 f/2.8 (Tough, the price against the Nikkor, is MUCH LESS difference compared to 17-50 Tamron VS 17-55 Nikkor)
The Tamron in this case, extends during focusing, it's MUCH SLOWER; To be honest, it's a much worst recommendation comparing Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8;
* and some others

So, you see, recommending the 3rd party is VERY COMMON; If you have to know, go read others and see how others debate over it. Honestly, I just give a small suggestion/alternative based on the "SCENARIO" provided and what the person is use for, in other forums, you'll read even more "strong" debate.

Anyway, I've made it clear, and I'm just "simply" suggesting a 3rd party, it's not a crime. If it makes anyone unhappy, I'm truly sorry for that. I did not say Nikkor version is not good or anything, just stating my personal opinion on the price and altervatives, it's purely personal opinion, anyone may disagree, but hope anyone don't get "unpleasant" over it.

To be frank, I have seen some wedding photo shots slightly OOF and all. It just boils to how much they care... sometimes as long they get the moment, slightly oof and all is ok. Some people demand more some people demand less. Up to the user and client, most of them can't differentiate between sharp and slightly OOF anyways.

True, but for wedding or job (especially paid ones), I would highly recommend use the better tools, no doubt; But then, even with better tools, it doesn't mean the anyone can get the best results; In the end, it still boils down to the person's technique/skill.

I kinda viewed some of my friend and also relatives wedding album and all... back then before I started photography, I just look at the image... but nowadays I look at composition, color, sharpness etc etc... find some of them really lousy quality :S.

3. Tamron SP90 f/2.8 (Tough, the price against the Nikkor, is MUCH LESS difference compared to 17-50 Tamron VS 17-55 Nikkor)
The Tamron in this case, extends during focusing, it's MUCH SLOWER; To be honest, it's a much worst recommendation comparing Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8;
* and some others

Anyway, I've made it clear, and I'm just "simply" suggesting a 3rd party, it's not a crime. If it makes anyone unhappy, I'm truly sorry for that. I did not say Nikkor version is not good or anything, just stating my personal opinion on the price and altervatives, it's purely personal opinion, anyone may disagree, but hope anyone don't get "unpleasant" over it.

^Andy , i think is heartpatrick using tamron 17-50.

True, but for wedding or job (especially paid ones), I would highly recommend use the better tools, no doubt; But then, even with better tools, it doesn't mean the anyone can get the best results; In the end, it still boils down to the person's technique/skill.

Yeah, the price difference is not as wide but again, I'm more interested in quality you can get from 3rd party. You cannot differentiate them apart if you put their pics side by side.
Voicing out different opinions is fine when done civilised. It's all good to make sure all the basics are covered as target audience is very wide. One suggestion may not always be the best for certain people.
Actually, I would be interested in 100% crops of his shots wide open. But then again, his composition skills makes up more for anything else.
I agree. 

On a side note, I was surprised to see that the 18-70 was still being used as one of UK's pro wedding photographer that was featured in DCM's June edition. Of course body is D3 / D700. Again, good composition is everything and what separates the pros from the rest.

To be frank, I have seen some wedding photo shots slightly OOF and all. It just boils to how much they care... sometimes as long they get the moment, slightly oof and all is ok. Some people demand more some people demand less. Up to the user and client, most of them can't differentiate between sharp and slightly OOF anyways.

Hi all, I am planning to get a D5100 but i dont know whether should i go for the 18-55mm kit lens package or just get the Body + AFS 50mm F1.8 or 35mm

Most of the time i am using to take food, portrait and scene...

Guise, Nikon 16-35mm F4 as walkaround lens? what say you?

Atm im using nikon 24-85mm F2.8-4 as my walkaround, thinking of upgrading (or downgrading kot )

or maybe just go for 24-120mm F4? im on D90 btw

Poor gid, he was asking for more opinions between selecting a 17-55 and 24-70 ended up in a long debate between Everdying and Andy214. Well, I'm not trying to side neither sides nor saying who's correct because it's all opinions and individual preferences.

Before I sum 17-55 vs 24-70 on which could be better, let's sum up the Original Nikkor Lenses vs 3rd Party Lenses:

Nikkor Lenses (Original Nikon Products)

Pros

• Generally sharper?
  
• Generally better color contrast?
  
• Generally faster focus
  
• Better focus accuracy
  
• Better built quality
  
• Less likely of front/back focusing problem
  
• Generally high resale value but not all
  
• Less noisy auto-focus motor (for AF-S lenses)
  

Cons

• Very expensive
  
• Some lenses has lower resale value which would cause bad resale value ratio
  

3rd Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina)

Pros

• Generally slower focus and some very slow
  
• Not so accurate focus
  
• Chances of focus hunting in low light
  
• Built quality not as great as Nikkor lenses
  
• Likelihood of front/back focusing problem
  
• Some has noisy auto-focus motor (for AF-S lenses)
  

Cons

• Cheaper alternative than original Nikkor lenses (some even cheaper by 3x~4x)
  
• People tend to prefer 2nd hand Nikkor than 2nd hand 3rd party lenses?
  

That's what I could collect from the debate

However, please do note that there are good 3rd party lenses that could be better compared with Nikkor lenses. One good example would be Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 which is generally known it's sharper than Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. For this example, the Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 or known as Sigmalux is priced higher than Nikkor's.

The Tamron SP90mm f/2.8 VS Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G Micro AF-S has quite a lot of difference; Probably it's more suited to compare with the f/2.8D? The G version is a great piece of glass, fast and accurate focusing, it doesn't extend (Internal Focus and Silent), comes with VR; The main issue is probably the focus breathing which can be an issue for serious macro shooters.

The Tammy version extends very long, it's slow and less accurate, etc; Comparing with the Nikkor, it's actually quite a big difference;
If to compare this comparison with the 17-50 equivalent, this has more reasons/points to go choose Nikkor version (personal opinion).

For the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron, the sharpness is actually pretty good wide-open;  The main issue is the slower focus, hunting in low light and inaccurate focus in low light, for those using for jobs or wedding, this is important as the higher chances of getting the wrong focus will ruin your work.

Hi all, I am planning to get a D5100 but i dont know whether should i go for the 18-55mm kit lens package or just get the Body + AFS 50mm F1.8 or 35mm

Most of the time i am using to take food, portrait and scene...

Guise, Nikon 16-35mm F4 as walkaround lens? what say you?

Atm im using nikon 24-85mm F2.8-4 as my walkaround, thinking of upgrading (or downgrading kot )

or maybe just go for 24-120mm F4? im on D90 btw

Agreed there. So a Nikkor micro lens then? 

If on budget, you make compromises with 3rd party lenses. Depending on certain people, some compromises are more important to certain people and some not. If I were to make compromises, image quality would be the last thing I would compromise. Given the shortcomings of the 3rd party lens and if I had a low budget, I would take the Tamron macro. But then, I'm no macro person...

Ok. With macro, speed is no issue. But a wide angle lens for general wedding needs to function and focus fast. No point having the best glass when you cannot capture the moment. I guess that's the reason why people don't use a manual focus Zeiss for wedding.

So again, speed and hence accuracy is being compromised here. It's up to the person if he/she thinks that saving some money is worth the compromise.

Yup, it depends on how the person weight the weakness and make compromises. For weddings, events, the speed and accuracy is important which meant getting higher hit accurate hit rate and capturing the moment; thus if one is paid, there's no excuse to go cheap solution, people are paying a big amount for their big day.

As for the macro lens, I believe many don't just use it for macro purpose; It can be a great portrait lens as well, thus, the accuracy and speed is useful; As for macro, the "extension" for Tamron SP90 is, pretty long, and it's also kind of noisy and slow. It may not be an issue if all macro lens are the same, but once use the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G, it's so much different... it's about 2X more, but you're getting a whole lots of difference, including image quality. As another plus, it serves as a great portrait lens, with VRII, accurate and fast focusing. This is purely my personal take, you may find others supporting the Tamron SP90, just like many others supporting the Tamron 17-50mm (although, technically I'm not supporting Tamron 17-50 over the Nikkors 17-55)

Oh btw I was poisoned by Ted Adnan's D3 + 24-70

nikon rumors said there will be 2 bodies coming up very very soon...
ani idea wat will it be...?
btw...
ordered my drybox but it jz got delayed...

Used friend's 105 VR before he finally sold it off, basically the focus is slow (I think slower than my 85mm f/1.4G!). I don't remember how slow the SP90 is, been ages since I came across one of them.
o_O 24-70 seriously?

o_O 24-70 seriously?