Tamron 17-50 non-VC or 3 primes?

K

KMPhoto

Messages
2,385
Name
Kevin
Edit My Images
Yes
Probably asking something only I can answer but here goes :)

Body is a D90

Lenses:

Sigma 10-20

Nikkor 35 1.8

Nikkor 50mm 1.8

Tokina 50-135 2.8

I have sourced a Nikkor 24mm 2.8 and wondering if I should go with it or have the advantage of the Tamron 17-50 f2.8?

Any suggestions as to which is the best way to go - 3 primes or the tried and tested 17-50?

Cheers,
 
How long is a piece of string. They do different jobs. IMO the primes have advantages in DOF and outright sharpness, clearly the zoom is more flexible for framing the image.

I've been through a series of L series Canon zooms and have recently settled on just three primes, i.e. a 35mm, 85mm and a macro (on an FF camera).
I'm very conscious that I'll probably take fewer shots, but believe that the ones I do take are now more appealing than they used to be, mainly because of their capability in low light and DOF. For all that, it depends completely on what you do with them, and my choice is most certainly not for everyone.
 
Yeah, not easy. I'll get the 17-50 and wait for a good deal on a 24mm.
 
Modern zooms are so good that I personally don't see the point of a f2.8 or slower prime unless it's a macro, or some other really good reason that I just can't think of at the moment.
 
I've solved my problem by getting both:

Tamron 17-50 and the 3 primes :)

Hope that sates the lust for a day or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top