Do I really need these two Tamron lenses?

[jack55]

I had many Tamron lenses over the years and love them.

Right now I have these two lenses to go with my D5300:
Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3
Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3

My question is will this lens Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 benefit me?

Most of my shooting is landscapes and wildlife/birds.
A lot of shooting is in low light.
See my website:
https://moskovita-photography.com/

The above are backups to my main outfit and for friends that go on some trips with me.

[TCav]

If you're talking about the unstabilized version, it runs rings around your 18-270 where their ranges overlap.

[jack55]

Originally Posted by TCav

If you're talking about the unstabilized version, it runs rings around your 18-270 where their ranges overlap.

It's not the VC version

[TCav]

The unstabilized Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is way sharper than the 18-270, and has less distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration, so your landscape photography will benefit greatly.

[jack55]

Originally Posted by TCav

The unstabilized Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is way sharper than the 18-270, and has less distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration, so your landscape photography will benefit greatly.

Thank you... I just ordered one.

[jack55]

Originally Posted by TCav

The unstabilized Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is way sharper than the 18-270, and has less distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration, so your landscape photography will benefit greatly.

Okay, this post is almost two years old but I have another question. I've now had this Tamron SP A016 17-50mm f/2.8 Di-II LD XR Aspherical IF AF Lens since then too and love it, but I just got a Nikon D700 in mint condition with a tad over 12K actuations just for Landscapes as I do a lot of those. Now if I'm correct, my current lens is only for DX Nikon, right?

[TCav]

Correct. The Tamron SP A016 17-50mm f/2.8 Di-II LD XR Aspherical IF AF Lens only projects an APS-C size image.

A 'Full Frame' equivalent would be a 24/70/2.8, but they're MUCH more expensive, and not quite as good as the Tamron 17-50/2.8.

[jack55]

Originally Posted by TCav

Correct. The Tamron SP A016 17-50mm f/2.8 Di-II LD XR Aspherical IF AF Lens only projects an APS-C size image.

A 'Full Frame' equivalent would be a 24/70/2.8, but they're MUCH more expensive, and not quite as good as the Tamron 17-50/2.8.

Well, if I were to use the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 would it become a 24/70/2.8 then? I would lose resolution too, right?

I'm looking to buy a used prime Nikon 20mm f/2.8 off eBay.

UPDATE: I might try my current lens before buying a FX 20mm f/2.8
https://photographylife.com/using-ni...-on-fx-cameras

[TCav]

Originally Posted by jack55

Well, if I were to use the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 would it become a 24/70/2.8 then? I would lose resolution too, right?

Your D700 may or may not recognize that the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is an APS-C only lens. If it does, instead of recording a 4,256 × 2,832 resolution image, it will record only 2,784 × 1,848 pixels. If it doesn't, you'll get a 4,256 × 2,832 pixel image with A LOT of vignetting.

[jack55]

Originally Posted by TCav

Your D700 may or may not recognize that the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is an APS-C only lens. If it does, instead of recording a 4,256 × 2,832 resolution image, it will record only 2,784 × 1,848 pixels. If it doesn't, you'll get a 4,256 × 2,832 pixel image with A LOT of vignetting.

OK, I just bought a Nikon D800E off eBay with 13,526 shutter actuations. It has 36.3 MP so I should be able to use DX mode and still have good images with my 17-50mm DX lens. Then I'll sell my D5300 and D700 which has 12,835 shutter actuations and get a good FX f/2.8 wide angle lens, fixed or zoom. Meanwhile I will use my D7500 with 200-500mm for BIF and wildlife and the D800E for landscapes.

So my next question is what would be best, a FX 17-50mm f/2.8 or fixed 20/24/28 f/2.8 for landscapes? I don't mind if it's a Tamron or Sigma.