Hi, your opinion on lenses please


wazzupku

New Member
Apr 24, 2010
218
0
0
#1
Hi

I am looking for a walk around and portrait lens. I missed the 35ltd, someone was quicker hand... And brand new is too much for me. So, I am looking for a substitute for it.

Now in my mind, I have 2 lens for walk around: Sigma 18-50 2.8 Macro (the old model without HSM) and the faithful tamron 17-50 2.8

Sigma is slightly cheaper than tamron, but with macro and closer focus. Tamron, on the other hand, are used by many.

So, I just want to ask your opinion on the 2 lenses about the quality of image, as well as durable of the lens. Also, at 50mm 2.8, it is still good for portrait, how are the 2 compare?

Thank you
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,042
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#2
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is not a true macro lens, it can just focus closer; so when you say "with macro and closer focus", you're saying the same thing.

I think the Tamron is more widely used because it's more readily available, that's about it. Since it also has the added benefit of having 1mm advantage at the widest end, I'd say go for it. IQ and durability (build), both are equal to me.

The Tamron (and I suppose by extension, the Sigma) will not be tack sharp wide open at 50mm f/2.8. f/3.5 - f/4.0 would be less soft, especially at the sides.

My suggestion is to consider the 35mm f/2.4. It's cheap, it's wonderfully sharp at the centre even wide open, and it's light and small.

That said, you must make up your mind as to whether you want a prime or a zoom. It seems a tad weird to jump from 35 mm prime to 18-50/17-50 zooms, because the size and weight are quite different, and the purposes. Hope this helps.
 

wazzupku

New Member
Apr 24, 2010
218
0
0
#3
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is not a true macro lens, it can just focus closer; so when you say "with macro and closer focus", you're saying the same thing.

I think the Tamron is more widely used because it's more readily available, that's about it. Since it also has the added benefit of having 1mm advantage at the widest end, I'd say go for it. IQ and durability (build), both are equal to me.

The Tamron (and I suppose by extension, the Sigma) will not be tack sharp wide open at 50mm f/2.8. f/3.5 - f/4.0 would be less soft, especially at the sides.

My suggestion is to consider the 35mm f/2.4. It's cheap, it's wonderfully sharp at the centre even wide open, and it's light and small.

That said, you must make up your mind as to whether you want a prime or a zoom. It seems a tad weird to jump from 35 mm prime to 18-50/17-50 zooms, because the size and weight are quite different, and the purposes. Hope this helps.
Hi, thanks for your advice. Today I went to check out the tamron 17-50. Must say I really surprise by it. My friend told me it is a wonderful lens, but I never believe.

I was consider the 35 2.4, but many friends of mine said it is only a lil better IQ than the kit lens, not that much. But again, that is wat i heard, not wat I tried, just like the tamron. I am really keen to try out 35 2.4. Hopefully there is some in stock so I can try out 2mrw.
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,042
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#4
I was consider the 35 2.4, but many friends of mine said it is only a lil better IQ than the kit lens, not that much. But again, that is wat i heard, not wat I tried, just like the tamron. I am really keen to try out 35 2.4. Hopefully there is some in stock so I can try out 2mrw.
It's not as sharp as the 50mm f/1.4 FA.. but it's great stuff considering the price. The kit lens has pretty decent IQ when stopped down... Perhaps your friends are not composing in the centre when wide open... :) At f/3.5 the corners are fine for me.







 

May 7, 2010
1,028
0
0
#5
It's not as sharp as the 50mm f/1.4 FA.. but it's great stuff considering the price. The kit lens has pretty decent IQ when stopped down... Perhaps your friends are not composing in the centre when wide open... :) At f/3.5 the corners are fine for me.
Great stuff, but sadly f/2.4. If only pentax released something like nikon's 35/1.8, at the same price point, i bet every single pentax user will get it
 

Last edited:

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,042
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#6
Great stuff, but sadly f/2.4. If only pentax released something like nikon's 35/1.8, at the same price point, i bet every single pentax user will get it
I'm happy with F/2.4. I care about what I have, not what I can have... :) After all, if I can use ISO3200 confidently, it should be fine. :)
 

jerots

New Member
Mar 11, 2010
121
0
0
26
#7
It's not as sharp as the 50mm f/1.4 FA.. but it's great stuff considering the price. The kit lens has pretty decent IQ when stopped down... Perhaps your friends are not composing in the centre when wide open... :) At f/3.5 the corners are fine for me.
+1, nice pics~~


Great stuff, but sadly f/2.4. If only pentax released something like nikon's 35/1.8, at the same price point, i bet every single pentax user will get it
wah don need 1.8 la!

i super impressed last night with the da 35 2.4! at 2.4 at night i can get this!

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljgaorPRgy1qbntqyo1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1302631174&Signature=lDGCAYwJJbs7oxiRiicAQOYxGd0%3D
 

Last edited:
May 7, 2010
1,028
0
0
#8

Supersimon27

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2010
2,972
22
38
#10
I was consider the 35 2.4, but many friends of mine said it is only a lil better IQ than the kit lens, not that much.
I don't really agreed with this statement . To me I feel that the iq I'd much better compare to the kit lens . Out of the 3

I will rate #1 Fa 50mm #2 da 35 f2.4 then tamron 17-50 in term of sharpness when shooting @ 2.8 (can't blame lah , fa50 stop down so much and tammy at wide open)

Fa 50mm pro is u can do f1.4 (ya a bit soft but once u stop down to 2 it's powerful enough)
Da 35 f2.4 pro is - man ... This lens is jus so small and light . U will not consider twice bringing it out
Tammy pro due to it versatile . U can do wide angle / walkabout/ and short tele with just this lens

All 3 are good lenses and it kind of difficult choice to choose which to buy ( even harder to chose which to sell , the problem I'm facing now :( )

My suggestion for u is , u need to be comfortable with the focal length . No point to get the sharpest (among the 3) Fa 50 and you do landscape most if the time . If you are comfortable with 50/35mm both are really worth consider :)
 

MarineX

Deregistered
Dec 25, 2009
462
0
0
#12
I was consider the 35 2.4, but many friends of mine said it is only a lil better IQ than the kit lens, not that much. But again, that is wat i heard, not wat I tried, just like the tamron. I am really keen to try out 35 2.4. Hopefully there is some in stock so I can try out 2mrw.
sorry i don't agree on this. It is alot better for me.
 

Last edited:

CorneliusK

Senior Member
Jan 23, 2010
790
0
16
#13
Its easier to get bokeh when shooting close up to small animals, but not so easy to get it for head and shoulder shots of humans.
 

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,950
90
48
#14
Great stuff, but sadly f/2.4. If only pentax released something like nikon's 35/1.8, at the same price point, i bet every single pentax user will get it
Both are nice in their own way.
Sledgehammer vs katana
Transformer vs Gundam
:)
All have their fans and get the job done. (I prefer the latter :D)


DA35/2.4 is sleek, a wee bit smaller and great from f2.4.
Better distortion control, more even sharpness from wide open.

Nikon 35/1.8 is just faster for all its worth.
 

Piscator

New Member
Apr 10, 2011
54
0
0
#15
Its easier to get bokeh when shooting close up to small animals, but not so easy to get it for head and shoulder shots of humans.
I am a noob, is it because of the larger target and varying DOF of the subject?

For 200 plus I think I can't go wrong with a 35mm 2.4 lens for a start. Question is can I use this lens to capture 3/4 of the humans body in close range 4 feet away?
 

#16
I am a noob, is it because of the larger target and varying DOF of the subject?

For 200 plus I think I can't go wrong with a 35mm 2.4 lens for a start. Question is can I use this lens to capture 3/4 of the humans body in close range 4 feet away?
just move closer/further from the subject, haha
 

detritus

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,922
3
0
shootingbugs.blogspot.com
#18
I should have said it is from a confined place where movement is limited.
in tight spaces (e.g. restaurant small rooms), i find that a fast zoom works better. based on my estimate, shooting across a restaurant table, a 35mm can probably give you abt 1/2 body from abt 1m (3ft) away but then, if you have very little space to move and compose, it limits the type of shot you can get.

a 16-50 or 17-50 can give you the added flexibility of zooming out and give you more room to compose if you need to. At F2.8, its also not that slow compared to the DA35 F2.4.
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,042
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#19
I am a noob, is it because of the larger target and varying DOF of the subject?

For 200 plus I think I can't go wrong with a 35mm 2.4 lens for a start. Question is can I use this lens to capture 3/4 of the humans body in close range 4 feet away?
Well, at the risk of being glib, technically you can use any lens to capture 3/4 of human's body in close range 4 feet away, even a 600mm... You can stitch panorama and make sure the human doesn't move... :p

Jokes aside, if you have a kit lens, you can just set it at 35mm and try it for yourself! :)
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,042
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#20
in tight spaces (e.g. restaurant small rooms), i find that a fast zoom works better. based on my estimate, shooting across a restaurant table, a 35mm can probably give you abt 1/2 body from abt 1m (3ft) away but then, if you have very little space to move and compose, it limits the type of shot you can get.

a 16-50 or 17-50 can give you the added flexibility of zooming out and give you more room to compose if you need to. At F2.8, its also not that slow compared to the DA35 F2.4.
I agree a zoom can give one more flexbility in such situations, but probably not the zooming in and out, more of the ability to switch focal lengths to give a more pleasant arrangement of the elements that might be present. That said, zoom versus prime is an age old argument, everyone has their own preferences... Me, I use my zooms as primes first, actually..... E.g. my 10-20 is fixed at 10mm, my 10mm fisheye is fixed at 10mm, I don't really use the other zooms that often nowadays (18-55 kit, 70-300).. When that doesn't work, then I try to use the rest of the range... It's a bit unhealthy, but it's habit already.
 

Top Bottom