some musing..

[ssping83]

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.. =)

 

[wildstallion]

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.

 

[Buggy]

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 :bsmilie:

 

[wildstallion]

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 :bsmilie:

Yup, your right.

 

[jfoo]

Yup, your right.

concur.

 

[dennisc]

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.

 

[lsisaxon]

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.

 

[blazer_workz]

I only heard of people replacing their zooms for primes..:bsmilie:

 

[catchlights]

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.

 

[ssping83]

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!~

 

[synapseman]

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).