Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: some musing..

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore
    Posts
    1,002

    Default some musing..

    hi all..

    have a question here regarding lens choice.. (not that i own any of the lens mentioned..)

    if you have a fast lens such as a tamron 17-50 f/2.8.. or sigma 18-50 f/2.8.. how often will you still be using a prime like 50mm f/1.8..

    how different are these two in terms of use and how different will the depth of field / image quality / sharpness be like?

    does the fast lens somewhat "replaces" (the word "replace" used very loosely) the prime?

    hope someone can share some example pictures or websites discussing this.. =)
    Last edited by ssping83; 10th February 2008 at 04:42 PM. Reason: changed some text

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Clementi, Singapore
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: some musing..

    It would definitely not replace the prime. The lenses are good but do not offer the same bokeh or sharpness that a 50mm lens will give you stopped down to 2.8. Also, with the option to go to a bigger aperture the depth of field will be much shallower. Id definitely have both lenses in my lineup.

  3. #3
    Member Buggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Woodlands
    Posts
    1,139

    Default Re: some musing..

    Quote Originally Posted by ssping83 View Post
    hi all..

    have a question here regarding lens choice.. (not that i own any of the lens mentioned..)

    if you have a fast lens such as a tamron 17-50 f/2.8.. or sigma 18-50 f/2.8.. how often will you still be using a prime like 50mm f/1.8..

    how different are these two in terms of use and how different will the depth of field / image quality / sharpness be like?

    does the fast lens somewhat "replaces" (the word "replace" used very loosely) the prime?

    hope someone can share some example pictures or websites discussing this.. =)
    i was just thinking about it the other day after i bought my 50mm f1.8. i've yet to own the tamron.

    i found several excuses to use my 50mm.

    1. when i want a super light walkabout lens
    2. when it's super low light
    3. when i'm shooting portraits

    i'll take a bet, the prime lens would outperform the tamron imo. do correct me if i'm wrong, i don't know whether i'm right or not in the first place

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Clementi, Singapore
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: some musing..

    Quote Originally Posted by Buggy View Post
    i was just thinking about it the other day after i bought my 50mm f1.8. i've yet to own the tamron.

    i found several excuses to use my 50mm.

    1. when i want a super light walkabout lens
    2. when it's super low light
    3. when i'm shooting portraits

    i'll take a bet, the prime lens would outperform the tamron imo. do correct me if i'm wrong, i don't know whether i'm right or not in the first place
    Yup, your right.

  5. #5

    Default Re: some musing..

    Quote Originally Posted by wildstallion View Post
    Yup, your right.
    concur.

  6. #6
    Senior Member dennisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Freezing Upp Thomson/Mandai!
    Posts
    2,008

    Default Re: some musing..

    Apart from what others have mentioned, I carry 17-50mm (equivalent) and the 50/80mm prime for portraits, as it serves a diff purpose ie: wide angle and 50mm.

  7. #7

    Default Re: some musing..

    Quote Originally Posted by ssping83 View Post
    hi all..

    have a question here regarding lens choice.. (not that i own any of the lens mentioned..)

    if you have a fast lens such as a tamron 17-50 f/2.8.. or sigma 18-50 f/2.8.. how often will you still be using a prime like 50mm f/1.8..

    how different are these two in terms of use and how different will the depth of field / image quality / sharpness be like?

    does the fast lens somewhat "replaces" (the word "replace" used very loosely) the prime?

    hope someone can share some example pictures or websites discussing this.. =)
    If you talk about a 3rd party zoom like the Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma 18-50, then I'd say even at f/2.8 you cannot get good corner to corner sharpness which the prime can give. If you're comparing the Nikon 17-55, then it's a different story.. But then the 50/1.4 is lighter and has a 2 stop advantage in low light. There are situations where one is more apt than the other and vice versa.

  8. #8
    Member/Tangshooter
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    ClubSNAP Community
    Posts
    3,118

    Default Re: some musing..

    I only heard of people replacing their zooms for primes..
    This is an electronic post which requires no signature.

  9. #9
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: some musing..

    Quote Originally Posted by ssping83 View Post
    hi all..

    have a question here regarding lens choice.. (not that i own any of the lens mentioned..)

    if you have a fast lens such as a tamron 17-50 f/2.8.. or sigma 18-50 f/2.8.. how often will you still be using a prime like 50mm f/1.8..

    how different are these two in terms of use and how different will the depth of field / image quality / sharpness be like?

    does the fast lens somewhat "replaces" (the word "replace" used very loosely) the prime?

    hope someone can share some example pictures or websites discussing this.. =)
    no, you shoot 50mm f1.8 @ f2.8, definably sharper than your 3rd party f2.8 lens @ f2.8. not forgetting it is lighter in weight, brighter in view finder, and also very much cheaper than the zoom lens.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore
    Posts
    1,002

    Default Re: some musing..

    hi all thanks for the replies.. =)

    i was thinking about this the other day coz i was looking up the prices of lenses.. a couple of primes (50mm, 35mm).. the basic kit (say 18-55mm or 18-70mm).. then it seems plausible to "replace" them all by a "not so sharp" (but maybe acceptable?! not sure about that) but "all in one" lens..

    got my answer.. lol.. thanks!~

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    2,196

    Default Re: some musing..

    It really depends on your application/needs, as well as your photographic style.

    For me, I need the flexibility of a zoom range. Sharpness and bokeh, while important, isn't super critical to me. These are really nice to have, but my priority lies in the need to capture a particular scene in its entirety.

    Had a 50mm f/1.4. Lovely, but it was just sitting in my dri-cab, so I sold it. Bought the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Again, excellent lens, but at 50mm, a bit too short. Then went ahead with the Sigma 17-70mm, and eventually settling with a Carl Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 (slow-aperture, but sharp and good optical range).
    Sony Alpha system user. www.pbase.com/synapseman

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
  •