some advice for a thought of mine.


hoho85

New Member
Dec 1, 2009
218
0
0
West
#1
after using tamron 17-50mm for nearly half a year, i have no problems with wad the lens can do for me.

but i realise that i dun really favour the 17mm to take landscapes.. and also big group shots...
(in this few months of use). i do tae wide shots of architectures, but this doesnt happen very often.

Then many times i feel the need to zoom in more... because i think i like portraits and close up more.

Then i think of selling 17-50mm and get 28-75mm instead.

Do u guys think this idea is crazy.?
 

Last edited:

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#2
after using tamron 17-50mm for nearly half a year, i have no problems with wad the lens can do for me.

but i realise that i dun really favour the 17mm to take landscapes.. and also big group shots...
(in this few months of use)

Then many times i feel the need to zoom in more...

Then i think of selling 17-50mm and get 28-75mm instead.

Do u guys think this idea is crazy.?
28-75 will be a problem for many landscapes, when you want a wide view.

but if it's your choice, it's your choice, don't need to care what people think.
 

voxies09

New Member
Apr 11, 2010
651
0
0
Singapore
#3
let me know if you want to sell it :D btw, is it VC or NON VC
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#4
after using tamron 17-50mm for nearly half a year, i have no problems with wad the lens can do for me.

but i realise that i dun really favour the 17mm to take landscapes.. and also big group shots...
(in this few months of use). i do tae wide shots of architectures, but this doesnt happen very often.

Then many times i feel the need to zoom in more... because i think i like portraits and close up more.

Then i think of selling 17-50mm and get 28-75mm instead.

Do u guys think this idea is crazy.?
it's only crazy if you think it's crazy :bsmilie:

If you never use less than 28mm, then by all means go ahead and make the switch.

If it were me, I'd keep the 17-50 and get a telephoto zoom (eg. 55-200 or 70-300)
 

sinned79

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2009
10,868
3
0
Singapore
www.aboutlove.sg
#5
after using tamron 17-50mm for nearly half a year, i have no problems with wad the lens can do for me.

but i realise that i dun really favour the 17mm to take landscapes.. and also big group shots...
(in this few months of use). i do tae wide shots of architectures, but this doesnt happen very often.

Then many times i feel the need to zoom in more... because i think i like portraits and close up more.

Then i think of selling 17-50mm and get 28-75mm instead.

Do u guys think this idea is crazy.?
why would u think 17mm not suitable for landscape?

if u ever climb mt kinabalu. u will appreciate your 17mm cos u can capture a wider view of the mountain. And you will favour more if u are on a FF body.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#7
why would u think 17mm not suitable for landscape?

if u ever climb mt kinabalu. u will appreciate your 17mm cos u can capture a wider view of the mountain. And you will favour more if u are on a FF body.
17-50 is for APS-C camera, so will be ineffective on a FF camera.
But ultimately the choice of what lens to get depends very much on the TS' usage.
 

sinned79

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2009
10,868
3
0
Singapore
www.aboutlove.sg
#8
17-50 is for APS-C camera, so will be ineffective on a FF camera.
But ultimately the choice of what lens to get depends very much on the TS' usage.
actually the tamron can be used on FF... lolz but u get nice vignetting effects :p

anyway my point to the TS is that 17mm got 17mm uses... especially landscape. just curious why he thinks 17mm not suitable for landscape? :confused:

also... if he uses his 17mm on his 1000D on mt kinabalu at least its wider then 28mm.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#9
actually the tamron can be used on FF... lolz but u get nice vignetting effects :p

anyway my point to the TS is that 17mm got 17mm uses... especially landscape. just curious why he thinks 17mm not suitable for landscape? :confused:

also... if he uses his 17mm on his 1000D on mt kinabalu at least its wider then 28mm.
after using tamron 17-50mm for nearly half a year, i have no problems with wad the lens can do for me.

but i realise that i dun really favour the 17mm to take landscapes.. and also big group shots...
(in this few months of use). i do tae wide shots of architectures, but this doesnt happen very often.

Then many times i feel the need to zoom in more... because i think i like portraits and close up more.

Then i think of selling 17-50mm and get 28-75mm instead.

Do u guys think this idea is crazy.?
Don't quite understand the point in bold...
 

Entity

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2009
601
0
16
#11
He probably prefers to isolate details of the landscape than to take everything in. Some shoot landscapes with their telezooms; sometimes depends on where you are and personal preference. E.g. shooting from a bus vs from the top of a mountain you may not want an UWA in the first situation as you will always get part of the window or roadside trees in your frame, while it works great in the second situation.

What I didn't really get is this:
...i dun really favour the 17mm to take landscapes.. and also big group shots...
TS you do not like the 17mm perspective when shooting a big group, or you do not like to take pictures of many people at one go? 28mm on APS-C is not the best for cramming lots of bodies into. :p

Is it your preference to only have 1 lens to shoot everything hence your inclination to sell the 17-50?
 

pokiemon

Senior Member
Mar 5, 2005
2,039
0
0
#12
Then i think of selling 17-50mm and get 28-75mm instead.
i think you should keep your 17-50 and buy 85mm F1.8/F1.4 (if you are on full frame) or 50mm F1.4 (if you are on crop).

this way you can still take portraits shots with nice bokeh.
 

Nov 20, 2009
96
0
0
Singapore
fotologue.jp
#14
after using tamron 17-50mm for nearly half a year, i have no problems with wad the lens can do for me.

but i realise that i dun really favour the 17mm to take landscapes.. and also big group shots...
(in this few months of use). i do tae wide shots of architectures, but this doesnt happen very often.

Then many times i feel the need to zoom in more... because i think i like portraits and close up more.

Then i think of selling 17-50mm and get 28-75mm instead.

Do u guys think this idea is crazy.?
I seriously think you should keep your 17-50mm. You will never know when it may come out with good use.
I used to have some sort of same experience as you. At first I find my 18-55mm kind of sux...and stick to my 50mm f/1.8 for awhile...then my hand got itchy, so I bring back my 18-55mm back to life. I am amazed that my 18-55mm can take good shots too! No lens is bad lens, no camera is bad camera...its all about the eyes of the photographer.

17-50mm can take decent close-up (but not as good as marco lens of coz), portraits(f/1.2 to f/2 will be great when you love bokeh and superb sharpness), landscape(17mm wide angle use) and still-life (almost anything goes).

28-75mm can take decent portraits, landscape, still-life and photojornalisting shots (bcoz of 75mm...some ppl dont like you pointing your camera at them directly...keeping a distance maybe more ideal but best is to ask them for approval). Not so much on close-up though(but its still possible).
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#15
Keep it and get a 70-200 instead. :)
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#16
Don't quite understand the point in bold...
it means he doesn't really need the 17mm to take landscape.
Hehehe I meant that I didn't understand the reasons why TS came up with that point.
But as has already been explained, some ppl prefer longer focal lengths for landscape photography.
 

Numnumball

Senior Member
Mar 6, 2009
13,899
0
0
Central
#17
after using tamron 17-50mm for nearly half a year, i have no problems with wad the lens can do for me.

but i realise that i dun really favour the 17mm to take landscapes.. and also big group shots...
(in this few months of use). i do tae wide shots of architectures, but this doesnt happen very often.

Then many times i feel the need to zoom in more... because i think i like portraits and close up more.

Then i think of selling 17-50mm and get 28-75mm instead.

Do u guys think this idea is crazy.?
Yes. Just get another prime to cover mid tele for portraits and keep ur 17-50
Do note 28-75 (FF) on APS-C render a different fov factoring the crop, u will end up in the middle of nowhere...
 

yc2005

New Member
May 14, 2009
698
0
0
#19
but i realise that i dun really favour the 17mm to take landscapes.. and also big group shots...
(in this few months of use). i do tae wide shots of architectures, but this doesnt happen very often.

Then many times i feel the need to zoom in more... because i think i like portraits and close up more.

Then i think of selling 17-50mm and get 28-75mm instead.

Do u guys think this idea is crazy.?
Actually this is a good thing that you've identified the area of photography that interests you more. There is no hard and fast rule for photography or focal lengths/range which u must use for certain genre of photography. Since you know that you do not need 17mm wide and prefer a range of >28mm, then you should just go for it!
 

ManWearPants

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2008
4,200
6
38
Singapore
#20
17 x 1.6 = 27.2mm . If you don't use this for landscape and group shots, what do you favour?
 

Top Bottom