|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11
|
![]()
This is my stable of lenses at the moment
D90 Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 Nikon 50mm f/1.8 Nikon 85mm f/1.8 Nikon 55-200 My usual walkaround lens is the 18-70. I have a good copy, vignetting is very minimal on mine and it does good work given adequate light, I feel its sharpness and contrast is underrated when lenses are debated (again, at least my copy ![]() I break out my fifty for low light indoor work, portraits, ect and was looking at the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S to add to my bag to complement my 50. I then had an epiphany, and here's where I would like some input...(while acknowledging the IQ of primes, I also dont want to end up having that many lenses..also, I love my 85 f1.8 and it fills a niche my other lenses dont, it stays regardless ...My "epiphany" was to get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, rather than having two primes in that FL and still missing out on a fast lens for the wide end, barring yet another acquisition. Yes, I realize the primes are the ideal, but I also know the Tammy, given a good copy, is quite the performer (I had one when I was a canon shooter). In this scenario I would sell the 50, the 18-70 and not get the new 35 f/1.8G Now, I dont mind switching lenses, (matter a fact, I have a severe case of LBA ![]() Note, I have a cross section of shooting preferences...a smorgasbord, but I'm really looking at my situationfor indoor, low light shots. Thnx
__________________
D7000 Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 SD Nikon 16-85 VR II Nikon 85mm f/1.8 D Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G Tamron 70-300 VC SB-600 Last edited by rrwilliams64; Jul 5, 2011 at 6:07 AM. Reason: error |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
The unstabilized (non-VC) Tamron 17-50/2.8 is quite a good lens, but the stabilized version isn't as good. If you want a stabilized fast standard zoom, the Sigma migh tbe a better choice.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 382
|
![]()
I have the Tamron 17-50 non-stabilized version and it is an excellent lens. In the reviews, it is sharper than both the Tamron and Sigma with their versions of stabilization. It raises the question...why have stabilization in a 50 and below? Even the much heavier Nikon 17--55 isn't stabilized.
Next question...why sell the 50 1.8? How much are you going to get for something that retails for just over $100? You will save that much in the price difference between the two Tamron versions. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|