Dilemna


Jul 16, 2010
725
0
0
#1
I have a tamron 17-50 non vc. Im thinking of getting a 28mm f2.8 prime. is it a waste of money? Are there any benefits about getting the lens? Or should i just keep the money?
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#2
In theory, at 28mm, the 28mm prime should have better IQ than the tamron.

But that depends on specific lens design. Best to go and read the reviews.
 

Jul 16, 2010
725
0
0
#3
i dont think there would be much reviews comparing the IQ of 28mm prime lens to the tamron. what kind of reviews should i look out for? any idea? i was thinking that prime IQ should be better but not sure how to find out how the 28mm f2.8 would be better than the tamron if its really better.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#4
i dont think there would be much reviews comparing the IQ of 28mm prime lens to the tamron. what kind of reviews should i look out for? any idea? i was thinking that prime IQ should be better but not sure how to find out how the 28mm f2.8 would be better than the tamron if its really better.
Read 2 separate reviews from the same site and compare on your own. Look at sites like photozone.de
 

zaren

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 27, 2003
10,961
28
48
#5
I have a tamron 17-50 non vc. Im thinking of getting a 28mm f2.8 prime. is it a waste of money? Are there any benefits about getting the lens? Or should i just keep the money?
keep the money. the tammy already covers the 28/2.8 focal length, with similar IQ.
 

pixelate

New Member
Apr 6, 2008
23
0
0
#6
i dont think there would be much reviews comparing the IQ of 28mm prime lens to the tamron. what kind of reviews should i look out for? any idea? i was thinking that prime IQ should be better but not sure how to find out how the 28mm f2.8 would be better than the tamron if its really better.
Basically, prime lenses are more superior than zoom lenses due to the number of elements in the latter. However, if cost is not an issue, go for it. Happy clicking !!
 

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,933
85
48
#7
Primes usually have a few advantages over zooms. Distortion control, aperture (larger than f2.8); image quality and size/weight. In terms of image quality, good zooms can near/rival primes and a 17-50/2.8 is a good zoom ;)
Unless pixel peeping, I don't think the image difference is significant.

Furthermore, a 28/2.8 prime is the same speed as a 17-50/2.8 zoom, distortion is usually minimal on 28-50mm focal length lenses, so the advantage here will probably only be size.

If its a faster 28mm like a 28/1.8, then that is a bit different, but in this case, I'd say save your money. :)
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#8
no hard evidence to support, but I would rather just use the 17-50/2.8 since it is just as fast and has the flexibility of zoom. IQ difference... hmmm, I think should not be that significant.
 

Jul 16, 2010
725
0
0
#9
feels that i might as well save for a 85mm f1.8 or 135mm f2L.
 

An drew

Senior Member
May 27, 2005
3,920
9
38
#10
An 85 1.8 would be a better choice than a 28 2.8 which doesn't give you much extra. If budget is an issue you can also consider the 100 f2 instead of the 135L.
 

Jul 16, 2010
725
0
0
#11
Ok the 100 f2 is a first for me. Shall check that out too.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#12
Just curious what you're trying to photograph with a 100mm lens.
Outdoor portraits?

Since you have 17-50, i guess safe to assume you have a crop factor camera.
I personally find 100mm to be quite 'tight' unless you have quite a lot of working space.
 

Jul 16, 2010
725
0
0
#13
Just curious what you're trying to photograph with a 100mm lens.
Outdoor portraits?

Since you have 17-50, i guess safe to assume you have a crop factor camera.
I personally find 100mm to be quite 'tight' unless you have quite a lot of working space.
your right, 500d im using. i was thinking of outdoor portrait lens and didnt want to be too near to my subjects therefore considering saving up for a 85 or 135.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,645
63
48
lil red dot
#14
your right, 500d im using. i was thinking of outdoor portrait lens and didnt want to be too near to my subjects therefore considering saving up for a 85 or 135.
For 1.6x cams, 100mm is already very tight, 135mm will be even tighter (feel like a 200mm on a FF). Your best bet will be a fast 50mm, and/or fast 85mm. You might want to consider a 70-200/2.8, but that is heavy and expensive, but it does give you the flexibility for portraits as well as telezoom.
 

Last edited:
Jul 16, 2010
725
0
0
#15
70-200 would be out of the question haha. And I have a 50mm although it's 1.8 so I guess ill try the 85 or 135. Will eventually test them out before making my decision la. Haha.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#17
TS maybe you can consider buying (2nd hand if budget tight) a cheaper telezoom like 55-250. Then you try shooting at 85 and 105 and 135 and see which focal length is comfortable. If shooting outdoor in daylight, should still be able to achieve pretty fast shutter speeds.
 

Jul 16, 2010
725
0
0
#18
ZerocoolAstra said:
TS maybe you can consider buying (2nd hand if budget tight) a cheaper telezoom like 55-250. Then you try shooting at 85 and 105 and 135 and see which focal length is comfortable. If shooting outdoor in daylight, should still be able to achieve pretty fast shutter speeds.
I have 18-200 haha. So I can try those distances and see which I prefer lor. Just that the aperture would make the difference in pictures with the primes.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#19
I have 18-200 haha. So I can try those distances and see which I prefer lor. Just that the aperture would make the difference in pictures with the primes.
correct...
use your 18-200 first.
I have a feeling that you'll find the 100+ mm range too tight for portrait photography on a crop factor cam.
 

Top Bottom