Personally, I would just get the Tamron 17-50 first and decide what to get later as the cash starts to accumulate again. This way, you get a good feel of what you want to do more of (ie. Landscape, Sports, portraits, etc) while the 17-50 offers a very good range to start playing around. At 17mm (~25mm for 35mm film format) the coverage is already very good and in the past, 28mm for film was already 'wide'. At 28-40mm you have 'normal' perspective and its no sloth either at f2.8. At 50mm, it hits a sweet spot of 75mm film equivalent which is good for portraits.
If you open yourself to manual focus options, you can use these to fill up rarely used focal lengths or 'fun' options like (28/2, 24/2.8, even 50/1.4, 85/2, 135/2.5, etc) at a low cost. Even though I have a 28-200m as a tele option, I have found little use at the tele end. In fact I have found the 85/2 and 135/3.5 to be quite fun for my occasional use as a 'sports' lens. Here are some pictures that were done using 2 manual lenses (85/2 and 135/3.5) and FA35/2. Done using single shots (so no 'cheating' machine gunning like the C&N folks
) Ok, the composition is crap :embrass:, but this was more for coverage than any artistic pursuit.
http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y135/jenkwang/Aviva 2009/?albumview=slideshow
If you open yourself to manual focus options, you can use these to fill up rarely used focal lengths or 'fun' options like (28/2, 24/2.8, even 50/1.4, 85/2, 135/2.5, etc) at a low cost. Even though I have a 28-200m as a tele option, I have found little use at the tele end. In fact I have found the 85/2 and 135/3.5 to be quite fun for my occasional use as a 'sports' lens. Here are some pictures that were done using 2 manual lenses (85/2 and 135/3.5) and FA35/2. Done using single shots (so no 'cheating' machine gunning like the C&N folks
) Ok, the composition is crap :embrass:, but this was more for coverage than any artistic pursuit.http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y135/jenkwang/Aviva 2009/?albumview=slideshow
