Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Lens suggestions

  1. #1

    Default Lens suggestions

    I am considering to get a tamron 17-50mm or a 28-75mm
    which is more worth to get if considering that i already own a sigma 10-20mm and a 55-300mm

    and IQ wise which is better?

    thanks.
    Last edited by Frontiers; 1st January 2012 at 10:08 PM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    Both lenses are very good ones. But to be honest, I'd suggest to get a 35/2.4 or 50/1.4/1.7 instead ...

  3. #3

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by fengwei View Post
    Both lenses are very good ones. But to be honest, I'd suggest to get a 35/2.4 or 50/1.4/1.7 instead ...
    thanks.. i already have a 35/2.4 - prefer something with alittle tele inbetween

  4. #4

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    10-20 > 28-75 is a good combo if you shoot often enough at 28-35mm for most walkabouts and then switch to 10-20 only for wide views (eg. landscapes, buildings)

    17-50 is good if you want a walkabout lens that does quite a bit of wide views (eg. landscapes) and then everything else in between (close-ups; portraits; general). It somewhat replaces the 10-20 since the FL overlaps. But it usually can't do wide captures of large buildings (internals/externals)

  5. #5
    Senior Member darrrrrrrrrr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,208

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    IMO, 17-50 is better. I'm sure most people will need the 17-28mm range more than the 50-70mm range. You can mount the 17-50 on the camera and shoot all day for holidays, events, family snapshots, walkabout, etc. But with the 28-75 you'll have to pack the 10-20 along for the wider shots, and change lenses more often too.

    If you're planning to only use the lens for portraiture or you know that you'll be fine with 28mm on the wide end then the 28-75 is a good choice. But for most people the 17-50 is a better fit for APS-C sensor. I think both are equally good in IQ and similar build quality

  6. #6

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by pinholecam View Post
    10-20 > 28-75 is a good combo if you shoot often enough at 28-35mm for most walkabouts and then switch to 10-20 only for wide views (eg. landscapes, buildings)

    17-50 is good if you want a walkabout lens that does quite a bit of wide views (eg. landscapes) and then everything else in between (close-ups; portraits; general). It somewhat replaces the 10-20 since the FL overlaps. But it usually can't do wide captures of large buildings (internals/externals)
    Quote Originally Posted by darrrrrrrrrr View Post
    IMO, 17-50 is better. I'm sure most people will need the 17-28mm range more than the 50-70mm range. You can mount the 17-50 on the camera and shoot all day for holidays, events, family snapshots, walkabout, etc. But with the 28-75 you'll have to pack the 10-20 along for the wider shots, and change lenses more often too.

    If you're planning to only use the lens for portraiture or you know that you'll be fine with 28mm on the wide end then the 28-75 is a good choice. But for most people the 17-50 is a better fit for APS-C sensor. I think both are equally good in IQ and similar build quality
    thanks for the insights. You guys set me re-think again

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Singapore North and West
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontiers
    I am considering to get a tamron 17-50mm or a 28-75mm
    which is more worth to get if considering that i already own a sigma 10-20mm and a 55-300mm

    and IQ wise which is better?

    thanks.
    I am previously at this scenerio too, just two weeks ago. I got my 17-50. Previously i am very keen to get to the other, cos i think i need the zoom more than wide angle. But after using i think my decision is correct, cos i need the wide angle more than i know.

    Anyways i will get the 70-200 later to cover the telephoto range

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Marine Parade
    Posts
    69

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    Hijacking this thread rather than starting a new one since the heading is quite apt.

    Any recommendation have a good budget macro lens?
    (remember there was a previous thread to this, but could not find it anymore)

    Have been wanting to take macro photos...

  9. #9
    Member simon6z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Near Bishan Park Macdonald
    Posts
    812

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by multan View Post
    Hijacking this thread rather than starting a new one since the heading is quite apt.

    Any recommendation have a good budget macro lens?
    (remember there was a previous thread to this, but could not find it anymore)

    Have been wanting to take macro photos...
    tamron 90 hahaha cheap n good, full time manual with A lens have to ask veterans here
    Sony A7II FE 28 Zeiss 55 FE 90 Sigma 150-600C

  10. #10
    Senior Member felixcat8888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    9,108

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by multan View Post
    Hijacking this thread rather than starting a new one since the heading is quite apt.

    Any recommendation have a good budget macro lens?
    (remember there was a previous thread to this, but could not find it anymore)

    Have been wanting to take macro photos...
    Pentax DFA 100mm F4 WR comes to mind.
    Pentaxian for Life
    K1, KP, FA*28-70/2.8, FA31, 43 & FA77 Limiteds, K85/1.8, FA*200/2.8, A50/1.2



  11. #11

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by felixcat8888 View Post
    Pentax DFA 100mm F4 WR comes to mind.
    got such a lens meh?

    i think u mean DFA100WR F2.8 is it?

    anyway, re affordable macro lens, i agree with the tamron 90 or the 100mm WR (which costs more).

    "cheap" macro would mean pure MF. and depending on your style of use, it may or may not suit your needs. AF is something u can switch off when u want to MF. AF comes in handy when u want to use the same lens for non-macro purposes. but the reverse is not true MF is MF all the way.

    the good MF macro lenses are getting rarer and the price is not very sane sometimes.

    the cheapest solution of course, would be a raynox.

  12. #12
    Member simon6z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Near Bishan Park Macdonald
    Posts
    812

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by detritus View Post
    got such a lens meh?

    i think u mean DFA100WR F2.8 is it?

    anyway, re affordable macro lens, i agree with the tamron 90 or the 100mm WR (which costs more).

    "cheap" macro would mean pure MF. and depending on your style of use, it may or may not suit your needs. AF is something u can switch off when u want to MF. AF comes in handy when u want to use the same lens for non-macro purposes. but the reverse is not true MF is MF all the way.

    the good MF macro lenses are getting rarer and the price is not very sane sometimes.

    the cheapest solution of course, would be a raynox.
    what if I sacrifice my 50mm and where do I find the Reverse ring adaptor? Because my 50 is full M lens hahaha although abit short on range maybe can get a 2x teleconverter plus reverse ring adaptor is it possible? But if get a raynor for 55-300 not sure what is the magnification is it 1:1<(smaller) or 1:1>(larger, can see insect hair sticking out?)
    Sony A7II FE 28 Zeiss 55 FE 90 Sigma 150-600C

  13. #13

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by multan View Post
    Hijacking this thread rather than starting a new one since the heading is quite apt.

    Any recommendation have a good budget macro lens?
    (remember there was a previous thread to this, but could not find it anymore)

    Have been wanting to take macro photos...

    For those with the versatility of AF, gt the Tamron or Sigma ones, though the Pentax DFA100 WR is really a very good deal for what it is.




    Quote Originally Posted by simon6z View Post
    what if I sacrifice my 50mm and where do I find the Reverse ring adaptor? Because my 50 is full M lens hahaha although abit short on range maybe can get a 2x teleconverter plus reverse ring adaptor is it possible? But if get a raynor for 55-300 not sure what is the magnification is it 1:1<(smaller) or 1:1>(larger, can see insect hair sticking out?)

    Can get fro OP and those shops in Mass Sales section.
    You can get a cheap M50/2 to do it.

    If you stack with 2x converter, I'm pretty sure whatever flaws in the stack will be amplified 2x as well.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by simon6z View Post
    what if I sacrifice my 50mm and where do I find the Reverse ring adaptor? Because my 50 is full M lens hahaha although abit short on range maybe can get a 2x teleconverter plus reverse ring adaptor is it possible? But if get a raynor for 55-300 not sure what is the magnification is it 1:1<(smaller) or 1:1>(larger, can see insect hair sticking out?)
    a raynox 250 is a +8 diopter. the calculation for magnification factor using diopter, iirc, is Magnification = (Diopter x lens focal length) / 1000

    so a raynox 250 will give u 1:1 magnification for 125mm focal length. longer than 125mm, u'll get larger than 1:1.

    better dun OT too much since TS wasn't asking abt macro lens

  15. #15

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    The 2 macro lens that come to mind will be tamron 90 and pentax 100 Wr too.

    I chose the latter . As it just a bit more but better build , smaller , lighter , WR and round aperture .
    My Flickr ->Flickr

  16. #16

    Default

    i give my thumps up for the tamron 90 n the older fa100 macro. with the af limiter switch these two lens. they can be a very good portraiture lens. the new dfa100wr dont have the af limiter switch.
    ....

  17. #17
    Senior Member felixcat8888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    9,108

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by detritus View Post
    got such a lens meh?


    i think u mean DFA100WR F2.8 is it?

    anyway, re affordable macro lens, i agree with the tamron 90 or the 100mm WR (which costs more).

    "cheap" macro would mean pure MF. and depending on your style of use, it may or may not suit your needs. AF is something u can switch off when u want to MF. AF comes in handy when u want to use the same lens for non-macro purposes. but the reverse is not true MF is MF all the way.

    the good MF macro lenses are getting rarer and the price is not very sane sometimes.



    the cheapest solution of course, would be a raynox.
    Ooops . . .Yes yes the F2.8
    Pentaxian for Life
    K1, KP, FA*28-70/2.8, FA31, 43 & FA77 Limiteds, K85/1.8, FA*200/2.8, A50/1.2



  18. #18

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    panagor 55mm macro or the vivitar 55 K mount tat cost abt 200 sing. Portable, lightweight, low in cost and decent sharpness.


    Image00001 by luctomar, on Flickr


    IMGP9757 by luctomar, on Flickr

    marcus

  19. #19
    Member simon6z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Near Bishan Park Macdonald
    Posts
    812

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by otc View Post
    panagor 55mm macro or the vivitar 55 K mount tat cost abt 200 sing. Portable, lightweight, low in cost and decent sharpness.

    marcus
    Full manual lens?
    Sony A7II FE 28 Zeiss 55 FE 90 Sigma 150-600C

  20. #20

    Default Re: Lens suggestions

    Quote Originally Posted by simon6z View Post
    Full manual lens?
    its a full manual lens no PKA.

    very fun lens to use. very light.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •