17-50mm f2.8 Vs 50mm f1.8

rpsmith79

rpsmith79

Messages
1,796
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking at getting a new lens as i currently have a Nikon 18-70 2.5-4.5 (kit lens) and a 50mm f1.8

Now i know the 17-50 f2.8 won't replace the need for my nifty fifty, but i seem to find when i'm out about that i don't want to be constantly changing my lens when i want a shallow DoF so find myself shooting with the 18-70 90% of the time, then feel disappointed when i get home as start looking though the shots

So my question is, would it be wise to replace the 18-70 with a 17-50 f2.8 for 90% of my shooting and keep the 50mm for those occasions i need a really shallow DoF, or would i be wasting my money on the 17-50mm

Also, and recommendations for which 17-50 f2.8 (i know of a Sigma and Tamron version), budget is around £300
 
rpsmith79 said:
I'm looking at getting a new lens as i currently have a Nikon 18-70 2.5-4.5 (kit lens) and a 50mm f1.8

Now i know the 17-50 f2.8 won't replace the need for my nifty fifty, but i seem to find when i'm out about that i don't want to be constantly changing my lens when i want a shallow DoF so find myself shooting with the 18-70 90% of the time, then feel disappointed when i get home as start looking though the shots

So my question is, would it be wise to replace the 18-70 with a 17-50 f2.8 for 90% of my shooting and keep the 50mm for those occasions i need a really shallow DoF, or would i be wasting my money on the 17-50mm

Also, and recommendations for which 17-50 f2.8 (i know of a Sigma and Tamron version), budget is around £300
Click to expand...

Before you splash the cash, bear in mind that the 18-70 is already a 3.5 to 4.5 lens so at the short end you'll be gaining only 2/3's of a stop or so and 1 1/3 at the longer end, though losing 20mm of course. If it's just about depth of field that won't neccessarily make a massive difference. You could play around with your 50mm at 2.8 and the your 18-70 set to 50mm and widest aperture to see the difference. Constant 2.8 will make a big difference in terms of ability to use in low light though.

The Tamron 17-50 is a great lens, you won't find many people saying otherwise. If you can find a used Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS in budget, then I think that is a better lens again. There is also the older Sigma 18-50 2.8 which can be picked up for £150 or so second hand. If you're buying new, the Tamron would be by far the obvious choice.
 
Thanks for that quick reply, i think i will give that a go and have a play around with both lenses as you suggested

What is the difference between the Sigma 17-50 OS and the older version (sorry, i still know next to nothing about lenses :()

I do shoot in low light quite often too, so would also be another good reason to switch i suppose
 
Last edited:
rpsmith79 said:
Thanks for that quick reply, i think i will give that a go and have a play around with both lenses as you suggested

What is the difference between the Sigma 17-50 OS and the older version (sorry, i still know next to nothing about lenses :()

I do shoot in low light quite often too, so would also be another good reason to switch i suppose
Click to expand...

The older sigma 17-50mm f2.8 are not very highly regarded hence they sell second hand for peanuts, the new 17-50mm f2.8 is the best of the none OEM lenses available but comes at a hefty price premium.

Personally if it were my money I'd go with a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC lots of people will tell you the none VC is sharper but for me the addition of VC is worth it for a tiny drop in sharpness.
 
Thanks Alex, yes the VC might be a good addition actually as my current 18-70 does not have it and since i primarily shoot the 50 wide open (or near as damn it wide open) i will be using a high shutter speed with the 50mm

This might be why i am not always fully happy with what i shoot with the 18-70

Hmmmm, decisions decisions :thinking:
 
a1ex2001 said:
The older sigma 17-50mm f2.8 are not very highly regarded hence they sell second hand for peanuts, the new 17-50mm f2.8 is the best of the none OEM lenses available but comes at a hefty price premium.

Personally if it were my money I'd go with a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC lots of people will tell you the none VC is sharper but for me the addition of VC is worth it for a tiny drop in sharpness.
Click to expand...

There is no older 17-50 2.8 Sigma. Only the current OS (optical stabilisation, equivalent of VC or VR) version which is a very good lens but expensive brand new. The old Sigma 18-50 2.8 is quite well regarded, I've had one myself and preferred it the Tamron 17-50, particularly for it's semi macro capability but I'd concede most people seem to prefer the Tamron these days.
 
A lot (a hell of a lot in fact) has been written about the VC and non-VC, from my research before buying my VC version I found out that the difference is tiny if it is even there at all, especially with later samples of the lenses. see here For example on my body the VC version comes out on top without even considering the benefits of the VC. I wanted to be able to handhold with low light so the VC was my choice.http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/186/%28lens2%29/498/%28brand1%29/Tamron/%28camera1%29/680/%28brand2%29/Tamron/%28camera2%29/680
 
Fond as I am of my Tamron 17-50mm (non-VC), it is best at the short end. The long end is less good and peaks at around f/5.6. The average 50mm f/1.8 prime will beat it I reckon.
 
I replaced my 50mm with the tamron non vc.

I don't miss the 50 because it's a prime and I dislike the flexibility...but I do Miss the sharpness at f2.8

The tamron is quite soft until f4.

If I had the money I'd like the Nikon 17-55 which would be the best of both worlds but right now I'm happy with the tamron over the 50mm purely because the ability to shoot in low light (albeit not pin sharp) outweighs the inflexibility of a prime.
 
 
..............................

I stand corrected. It is sharp!

f2.8

408374_10152497641700305_457506234_n.jpg


314729_10152497642030305_1516882969_n.jpg
 
The only thing I miss about DX, is this lens. I had the non-VC and it was on my D90 anout 95% of the time. Sure, I have the 24-70 for my FX cam now, but it's a hell of a lot heavier to cart about! For pretty much the same thing. The tamron was light, cheap and cheerful. I bought mine used for €230 about 3 years ago [the 24-70 cost me 7x that]. I sold my then 50mm 1.8D soon after as I found the 17-50 just as good at 50mm 2.8
 
Last edited:
Cheers for all the advice, it looks like i have bought one off here now anyway, non VC but it's at a good price :thumbs:
 
gad-westy said:
There is no older 17-50 2.8 Sigma. Only the current OS (optical stabilisation, equivalent of VC or VR) version which is a very good lens but expensive brand new. The old Sigma 18-50 2.8 is quite well regarded.
Click to expand...

That's the one I meant forgot about that 1mm but I certainly wouldn't say it was well regarded it reviewed poorly in comparison to it's peers and didn't sell very well at all. The new os lens is really sigmas first decent foray into this market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top