some musing..


Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
hi all..

have a question here regarding lens choice.. (not that i own any of the lens mentioned..)

if you have a fast lens such as a tamron 17-50 f/2.8.. or sigma 18-50 f/2.8.. how often will you still be using a prime like 50mm f/1.8..

how different are these two in terms of use and how different will the depth of field / image quality / sharpness be like?

does the fast lens somewhat "replaces" (the word "replace" used very loosely) the prime?

hope someone can share some example pictures or websites discussing this.. =)
 

#2
It would definitely not replace the prime. The lenses are good but do not offer the same bokeh or sharpness that a 50mm lens will give you stopped down to 2.8. Also, with the option to go to a bigger aperture the depth of field will be much shallower. Id definitely have both lenses in my lineup.
 

Buggy

New Member
Aug 16, 2004
1,139
0
0
Woodlands
#3
hi all..

have a question here regarding lens choice.. (not that i own any of the lens mentioned..)

if you have a fast lens such as a tamron 17-50 f/2.8.. or sigma 18-50 f/2.8.. how often will you still be using a prime like 50mm f/1.8..

how different are these two in terms of use and how different will the depth of field / image quality / sharpness be like?

does the fast lens somewhat "replaces" (the word "replace" used very loosely) the prime?

hope someone can share some example pictures or websites discussing this.. =)
i was just thinking about it the other day after i bought my 50mm f1.8. i've yet to own the tamron.

i found several excuses to use my 50mm.

1. when i want a super light walkabout lens
2. when it's super low light
3. when i'm shooting portraits

i'll take a bet, the prime lens would outperform the tamron imo. do correct me if i'm wrong, i don't know whether i'm right or not in the first place :bsmilie:
 

#4
i was just thinking about it the other day after i bought my 50mm f1.8. i've yet to own the tamron.

i found several excuses to use my 50mm.

1. when i want a super light walkabout lens
2. when it's super low light
3. when i'm shooting portraits

i'll take a bet, the prime lens would outperform the tamron imo. do correct me if i'm wrong, i don't know whether i'm right or not in the first place :bsmilie:
Yup, your right.
 

dennisc

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2002
2,026
2
38
Freezing Upp Thomson/Mandai!
#6
Apart from what others have mentioned, I carry 17-50mm (equivalent) and the 50/80mm prime for portraits, as it serves a diff purpose ie: wide angle and 50mm.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#7
hi all..

have a question here regarding lens choice.. (not that i own any of the lens mentioned..)

if you have a fast lens such as a tamron 17-50 f/2.8.. or sigma 18-50 f/2.8.. how often will you still be using a prime like 50mm f/1.8..

how different are these two in terms of use and how different will the depth of field / image quality / sharpness be like?

does the fast lens somewhat "replaces" (the word "replace" used very loosely) the prime?

hope someone can share some example pictures or websites discussing this.. =)
If you talk about a 3rd party zoom like the Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma 18-50, then I'd say even at f/2.8 you cannot get good corner to corner sharpness which the prime can give. If you're comparing the Nikon 17-55, then it's a different story.. But then the 50/1.4 is lighter and has a 2 stop advantage in low light. There are situations where one is more apt than the other and vice versa.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#9
hi all..

have a question here regarding lens choice.. (not that i own any of the lens mentioned..)

if you have a fast lens such as a tamron 17-50 f/2.8.. or sigma 18-50 f/2.8.. how often will you still be using a prime like 50mm f/1.8..

how different are these two in terms of use and how different will the depth of field / image quality / sharpness be like?

does the fast lens somewhat "replaces" (the word "replace" used very loosely) the prime?

hope someone can share some example pictures or websites discussing this.. =)
no, you shoot 50mm f1.8 @ f2.8, definably sharper than your 3rd party f2.8 lens @ f2.8. not forgetting it is lighter in weight, brighter in view finder, and also very much cheaper than the zoom lens.
 

#10
hi all thanks for the replies.. =)

i was thinking about this the other day coz i was looking up the prices of lenses.. a couple of primes (50mm, 35mm).. the basic kit (say 18-55mm or 18-70mm).. then it seems plausible to "replace" them all by a "not so sharp" (but maybe acceptable?! not sure about that) but "all in one" lens..

got my answer.. lol.. thanks!~
 

synapseman

Senior Member
May 6, 2003
2,196
0
0
State of Confusion
www.pbase.com
#11
It really depends on your application/needs, as well as your photographic style.

For me, I need the flexibility of a zoom range. Sharpness and bokeh, while important, isn't super critical to me. These are really nice to have, but my priority lies in the need to capture a particular scene in its entirety.

Had a 50mm f/1.4. Lovely, but it was just sitting in my dri-cab, so I sold it. Bought the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Again, excellent lens, but at 50mm, a bit too short. Then went ahead with the Sigma 17-70mm, and eventually settling with a Carl Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 (slow-aperture, but sharp and good optical range).
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom