Lens suggestions


Frontiers

Deregistered
Nov 28, 2011
74
0
0
#1
I am considering to get a tamron 17-50mm or a 28-75mm
which is more worth to get if considering that i already own a sigma 10-20mm and a 55-300mm

and IQ wise which is better?

thanks.
 

Last edited:

fengwei

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 25, 2004
14,462
12
0
Queenstown
www.pbase.com
#2
Both lenses are very good ones. But to be honest, I'd suggest to get a 35/2.4 or 50/1.4/1.7 instead ...
 

Frontiers

Deregistered
Nov 28, 2011
74
0
0
#3
Both lenses are very good ones. But to be honest, I'd suggest to get a 35/2.4 or 50/1.4/1.7 instead ...
thanks.. i already have a 35/2.4 - prefer something with alittle tele inbetween :)
 

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,944
88
48
#4
10-20 > 28-75 is a good combo if you shoot often enough at 28-35mm for most walkabouts and then switch to 10-20 only for wide views (eg. landscapes, buildings)

17-50 is good if you want a walkabout lens that does quite a bit of wide views (eg. landscapes) and then everything else in between (close-ups; portraits; general). It somewhat replaces the 10-20 since the FL overlaps. But it usually can't do wide captures of large buildings (internals/externals)
 

darrrrrrrrrr

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2006
3,209
5
38
30
Singapore
#5
IMO, 17-50 is better. I'm sure most people will need the 17-28mm range more than the 50-70mm range. You can mount the 17-50 on the camera and shoot all day for holidays, events, family snapshots, walkabout, etc. But with the 28-75 you'll have to pack the 10-20 along for the wider shots, and change lenses more often too.

If you're planning to only use the lens for portraiture or you know that you'll be fine with 28mm on the wide end then the 28-75 is a good choice. But for most people the 17-50 is a better fit for APS-C sensor. I think both are equally good in IQ and similar build quality
 

Frontiers

Deregistered
Nov 28, 2011
74
0
0
#6
10-20 > 28-75 is a good combo if you shoot often enough at 28-35mm for most walkabouts and then switch to 10-20 only for wide views (eg. landscapes, buildings)

17-50 is good if you want a walkabout lens that does quite a bit of wide views (eg. landscapes) and then everything else in between (close-ups; portraits; general). It somewhat replaces the 10-20 since the FL overlaps. But it usually can't do wide captures of large buildings (internals/externals)
IMO, 17-50 is better. I'm sure most people will need the 17-28mm range more than the 50-70mm range. You can mount the 17-50 on the camera and shoot all day for holidays, events, family snapshots, walkabout, etc. But with the 28-75 you'll have to pack the 10-20 along for the wider shots, and change lenses more often too.

If you're planning to only use the lens for portraiture or you know that you'll be fine with 28mm on the wide end then the 28-75 is a good choice. But for most people the 17-50 is a better fit for APS-C sensor. I think both are equally good in IQ and similar build quality
thanks for the insights. You guys set me re-think again
 

pendora

New Member
Jun 8, 2011
86
0
0
Singapore North and West
#7
Frontiers said:
I am considering to get a tamron 17-50mm or a 28-75mm
which is more worth to get if considering that i already own a sigma 10-20mm and a 55-300mm

and IQ wise which is better?

thanks.
I am previously at this scenerio too, just two weeks ago. I got my 17-50. Previously i am very keen to get to the other, cos i think i need the zoom more than wide angle. But after using i think my decision is correct, cos i need the wide angle more than i know.

Anyways i will get the 70-200 later to cover the telephoto range
 

multan

New Member
Feb 4, 2010
69
0
0
Marine Parade
#8
Hijacking this thread rather than starting a new one since the heading is quite apt.

Any recommendation have a good budget macro lens?
(remember there was a previous thread to this, but could not find it anymore)

Have been wanting to take macro photos...
 

simon6z

Senior Member
Dec 11, 2010
834
6
18
Near Bishan Park Macdonald
#9
Hijacking this thread rather than starting a new one since the heading is quite apt.

Any recommendation have a good budget macro lens?
(remember there was a previous thread to this, but could not find it anymore)

Have been wanting to take macro photos...
tamron 90 hahaha cheap n good, full time manual with A lens have to ask veterans here
 

felixcat8888

Senior Member
May 8, 2005
9,284
18
38
52
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#10
Hijacking this thread rather than starting a new one since the heading is quite apt.

Any recommendation have a good budget macro lens?
(remember there was a previous thread to this, but could not find it anymore)

Have been wanting to take macro photos...
Pentax DFA 100mm F4 WR comes to mind.
 

detritus

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,922
3
0
shootingbugs.blogspot.com
#11
Pentax DFA 100mm F4 WR comes to mind.
got such a lens meh? :confused:

i think u mean DFA100WR F2.8 is it?

anyway, re affordable macro lens, i agree with the tamron 90 or the 100mm WR (which costs more).

"cheap" macro would mean pure MF. and depending on your style of use, it may or may not suit your needs. AF is something u can switch off when u want to MF. AF comes in handy when u want to use the same lens for non-macro purposes. but the reverse is not true ;p MF is MF all the way.

the good MF macro lenses are getting rarer and the price is not very sane sometimes.

the cheapest solution of course, would be a raynox.
 

simon6z

Senior Member
Dec 11, 2010
834
6
18
Near Bishan Park Macdonald
#12
got such a lens meh? :confused:

i think u mean DFA100WR F2.8 is it?

anyway, re affordable macro lens, i agree with the tamron 90 or the 100mm WR (which costs more).

"cheap" macro would mean pure MF. and depending on your style of use, it may or may not suit your needs. AF is something u can switch off when u want to MF. AF comes in handy when u want to use the same lens for non-macro purposes. but the reverse is not true ;p MF is MF all the way.

the good MF macro lenses are getting rarer and the price is not very sane sometimes.

the cheapest solution of course, would be a raynox.
what if I sacrifice my 50mm and where do I find the Reverse ring adaptor? Because my 50 is full M lens hahaha although abit short on range maybe can get a 2x teleconverter plus reverse ring adaptor is it possible? But if get a raynor for 55-300 not sure what is the magnification is it 1:1<(smaller) or 1:1>(larger, can see insect hair sticking out?)
 

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,944
88
48
#13
Hijacking this thread rather than starting a new one since the heading is quite apt.

Any recommendation have a good budget macro lens?
(remember there was a previous thread to this, but could not find it anymore)

Have been wanting to take macro photos...

For those with the versatility of AF, gt the Tamron or Sigma ones, though the Pentax DFA100 WR is really a very good deal for what it is.




what if I sacrifice my 50mm and where do I find the Reverse ring adaptor? Because my 50 is full M lens hahaha although abit short on range maybe can get a 2x teleconverter plus reverse ring adaptor is it possible? But if get a raynor for 55-300 not sure what is the magnification is it 1:1<(smaller) or 1:1>(larger, can see insect hair sticking out?)

Can get fro OP and those shops in Mass Sales section.
You can get a cheap M50/2 to do it.

If you stack with 2x converter, I'm pretty sure whatever flaws in the stack will be amplified 2x as well.
 

detritus

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,922
3
0
shootingbugs.blogspot.com
#14
what if I sacrifice my 50mm and where do I find the Reverse ring adaptor? Because my 50 is full M lens hahaha although abit short on range maybe can get a 2x teleconverter plus reverse ring adaptor is it possible? But if get a raynor for 55-300 not sure what is the magnification is it 1:1<(smaller) or 1:1>(larger, can see insect hair sticking out?)
a raynox 250 is a +8 diopter. the calculation for magnification factor using diopter, iirc, is Magnification = (Diopter x lens focal length) / 1000

so a raynox 250 will give u 1:1 magnification for 125mm focal length. longer than 125mm, u'll get larger than 1:1.

better dun OT too much since TS wasn't asking abt macro lens :)
 

Supersimon27

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2010
2,964
22
38
#15
The 2 macro lens that come to mind will be tamron 90 and pentax 100 Wr too.

I chose the latter . As it just a bit more but better build , smaller , lighter , WR and round aperture .
 

poseur

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2009
1,034
14
38
#16
i give my thumps up for the tamron 90 n the older fa100 macro. with the af limiter switch these two lens. they can be a very good portraiture lens. the new dfa100wr dont have the af limiter switch.
 

felixcat8888

Senior Member
May 8, 2005
9,284
18
38
52
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#17
got such a lens meh?
:confused:

i think u mean DFA100WR F2.8 is it?

anyway, re affordable macro lens, i agree with the tamron 90 or the 100mm WR (which costs more).

"cheap" macro would mean pure MF. and depending on your style of use, it may or may not suit your needs. AF is something u can switch off when u want to MF. AF comes in handy when u want to use the same lens for non-macro purposes. but the reverse is not true ;p MF is MF all the way.

the good MF macro lenses are getting rarer and the price is not very sane sometimes.



the cheapest solution of course, would be a raynox.
Ooops . . .Yes yes the F2.8
 

Top Bottom