General fast lens

[Bukitimah]

Have search but didn't find a thread that provides good advice on this subject. Hope you guys don't mind me asking for feedback and your experiences.

I am currently using the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for my general purpose lens on by DX camera. I like the 17 mm which gives me enough wide angle but find the 50 mm a little short. I saw Tamron 28-75 mm f2.8 and I am thinking this may be a better option. That extra 25 mm from 50 mm can give me a better zoom.

I notice the 17-50 average around $400 in the pre-owned market whilst the 28-75 mm is only $300•. Am I looking at the right direction or I should consider another lens? Of course I am referring to lenses within this budget range.

 

[Levis]

I supposed $300 for a pre-owned 28-75mm could be those w/o bim or might have some cosmetic defect ones.

 

[spree86]

You like the 17mm but want a longer reach. It depends on what you want to compromise. 28-75 is a very sharp lens but focusing is not great. For a $300 2nd set, it might not be in that great a condition. Normally is around the $400-$450 range.

 

[nicorn]

sell away your 17-50 and get a 24-70:devil:

 

[Sgdevilzz]

Consider a prime? The 85mm f1.8G for the extra telephoto reach. Keep the 17-50mm

 

[TWmilkteaTW]

Have search but didn't find a thread that provides good advice on this subject. Hope you guys don't mind me asking for feedback and your experiences.

I am currently using the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for my general purpose lens on by DX camera. I like the 17 mm which gives me enough wide angle but find the 50 mm a little short. I saw Tamron 28-75 mm f2.8 and I am thinking this may be a better option. That extra 25 mm from 50 mm can give me a better zoom.

I notice the 17-50 average around $400 in the pre-owned market whilst the 28-75 mm is only $300•. Am I looking at the right direction or I should consider another lens? Of course I am referring to lenses within this budget range.

At the same time..you might also find the 28 too tight on your DX camera...

If i were to..i will just continue with the 17-50. How often you need the extra zoom? Anyway..25mm dosent make ALOT different..(You can just walk afew steps forward..) But on the other hand..if you find 28mm too tight..there's usually not enough room to move back..lol..

 

[TWmilkteaTW]

sell away your 17-50 and get a 24-70:devil:

am just waiting for this kind of reply n here it is.. its epic. lol.
every time people ask for a affordable item and some people will just recommended the most expensive/high end products.
lol.. that said..If TS have the money.. go ahead. you will be happy :bsmilie:

 

[daredevil123]

I notice the 17-50 average around $400 in the pre-owned market whilst the 28-75 mm is only $300•. Am I looking at the right direction or I should consider another lens? Of course I am referring to lenses within this budget range.

Don't think you can buy a 28-75 for $300 unless it is in really really bad shape.

Plan on paying at least 380 minimum for out-of-warranty (older than 3 years) set condition 8-9.

 

[nedy77]

Both lenses are good, just that they have different range, so it down to your own preference if u want to sacrifice the 17mm for the 75mm

 

[bigturbo]

17-50mm if you shoot at 50mm still can crop to 75mm ....but for 28-75 if you shoot at 28mm...there's no way to get wider than that..

 

[Edwin Francis]

Have to agree with spree86. I used a 28-75 on a Sony A700 for studio work (shooting kids) and the focus was slow. The range was great for my studio work, but the AF was always a pain.

 

[bonrya]

I heard it's a **** lens. You can get something else way better if you top up a few hundred.

 

[catchlights]

I heard it's a **** lens. You can get something else way better if you top up a few hundred.

like 70-200 f2.8 VR, hehe

 

[bonrya]

like 70-200 f2.8 VR, hehe

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: just top up about tens of hundreds only. :bsmilie:

 

[canonmono]

Canon has a 28-300mm classic lens, get a 10-20mm as well but if u drop either one then Wo La La ~ This happened to someone I knew when she travelling ..

 

[Isaiahfortythirtyone]

Sigma 17-70mm? variable aperture though, 2.8-4

 

[Bukitimah]

Thank you guys for sharing. I am giving myself more time to think over this. I guess I kind of agree that moving forward a little can solve the zooming problem while the wide angle is not so simple when the space is tight.

Having the f2.8 is something you don't want to miss otherwise my original kit lens would have done a great job.

 

[Mythmaker]

Too short for...? Stalking people? haha.

 

[pinholecam]

Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a good lens for the money.
However, its shortest focal length on APS-C is 28mm which some ppl find too long for a walkabout.
Personally, I do fine at 28mm, so its a matter of preference.

Matched with a UWA like 10-20mm, its gives very good focal length coverage, but you'd need to change lenses obviously when needing wider than 28mm.

17-50/2.8 is a very convenient lens to use. As you already know, the down side is the need to change to a longer lens sometimes, but how often is that for you?

 

[phoeniix]

But getting a 28 on your DX would mean you no longer have as wide an angle as compared to your current Tamron. I have, and do like very much, the Nikon 16-85. Sharp but unfortunately does not fall into your requirement of fast as its a 3.5-5.6. Then again, if you have one of the later models of Nikon cams, the high ISO range would somewhat offset this.

Another option as suggested is the Sigma 17-70. variable of 2.8-4 and cost around $570 from Technogadgets.