Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by kirchnel, Jul 16, 2007.
Looking for faster glass than I currently own. These are in my budget? Has anyone used either?
I just got the Tamron 17-50, and so far I think it is great. Very sharp, very fast. For the price of the Nikon 17-55, I got this Tamron and the Nikon 180mm f/2.8.
is there such a lens......17-75 ???
Do you mean sigma 17-70?
I have the Tamron and it is a good lens. It would be a good compliment to your 50-150 Sigma. Just ensure you get a good copy.
I think he means Tamron 28-75
Both are good if you get a decent copy
Sorry -- typo on my post. I do mean the Tamron 28-75. Trying to decide whether to get the further reach or go for the 17-50 which so many people rave about.
I have the nikon 18-70 but I wanted the faster glass for indoor available light shooting.
p.s. I am a she not a he. Picture is on my grandson, ryan.
How often do you find yourself in between 18-27 on your other lenses that can do this focal length?
I don't find myself wanting more than 50mm indoors in most cases. Unless you are talking about plays or sports.
The Tamron 17-50 has great AF speed, it beats my old 18-70DX kit as its brighter but on my D80 still focuses just as fast.
Personally I prefer the extra width to length and the 17-50 is incredibly sharp.
From your lens listing, it looks like the only place you don't have f/2.8 is at 25mm-49mm. It seems like adding either the 17-50 the 28-75 would give you a lot of focal length overlap with your lenses. Do you plan on getting rid of some of the other zooms? If not, then perhaps a Sigma 30 1.4 or a Nikon 35 2 might be a good fit.
I love the faster glass (as you can see). I take mostly photos of family/friends -- sort of photojournalistic style. Although I realize the focal length overlap -- adding the tamron will give me faster glass within that length. I am leaning towards the 28-75 because I think that is where I usually wind up.
The 50-150 sigma while fast and I am happy with -- is a more clumsy lens for everyday type stuff.
I just have read so much about the 17-50 but I am able to purchase the 28-75 at a very very good price.
therefore, the dilemma!
I've got the 28-75, and for candid pictures of family and friends, the extra FL is great for being able to stay out of sight.
Scan your images, how many taken with the 18-70 or 18-200 are under 28mm? Or how many times when using the 24-120 is it just not wide enough?
If the answer is not offen enough that changing to your 12-24 is not an issue then get the 28-75.
Then do the same for the 50-70 range.
I took the first 7 pages of this gallery with the 28-75, until the romantic two-lovers shot under the tree. The only thing you could notice (as if it was like mine, could be a very slight reddish cast, that sometimes it's even pleasant with portraits)
Here's the link: http://italy74.smugmug.com/gallery/3146333
With mine, I had no problems, I find it sharp and very good for the price. Of course I don't expect the "bulk" of my 17-35 just to give you an example. As other said, if you can find a good copy is an excellent lens.
Somewhere else I said that I'd like some kind of DX lens 16-90 (equivalent to the old 24-135 excursion) but til now I'm managing quite well one lens or the other
sounds like I am leaning the right way.
I hardly ever use my 18-70 or 18-200. The Tamron 18-200 was a lens when my camera was new that my husband bought me. I have never been that found of it, I think the images tend to be a little soft and it is slow.
I use the 18-70 once in a while, preferring instead the speed and ease of the 50 1.4.
The 24-120 I use on outdoor outings as it is way too slow for indoors.
I just got the 12-24 and will probably enjoy that a little more cause of the fast glass.
Eventually, my wish list includes the Nikon 17-55 which would solve alot of decisions but til then . . .
Thank you so much for the link -- like they say " a picture is worth a thousand words"
It helped make my decision and I went for the Tamron 28-75. I said earlier than my Tamron lens 18-200 is not one of my favorite lenses but I thought with the faster aperature I would give it another chance. I hope it is a sharp copy (like yours)
Italy looks great! One of the other things on my wish list!
Not really, then it is between the 17-55 and 28-70. Its the same choice you have now, just a different price point.:wink:
Tamron 17-50, you will not regret it. I love mine!
Tim, I had a Tamron 17-50/2.8 before and it has the "flash" problem. Do you have problems with yours? I am not sure if this is a sample variation issue. I would love to try my luck again.
I think that's a good choice. My wife uses a D50 with a Nikon AF 28-70/3.5-4.5 (42-105 equiv) for family shots. Although this zoom range is often described as "uninteresting" on the DX format, it's a good range for people. A wider lens would make people look "stretched" at the edges of the picture, and give them big noses for tight shots - 28mm is wide enough for out needs. Going to 70mm is a good length for portraits - the Tamron 28-75 even gives you a little extra reach. Another advantage of the 28-75 is that it is "full frame" so can be used on film cameras or the full frame digital (if/when it appears).