2 Lens For 1? All Rounder

KieranSLR

KieranSLR

Messages
614
Name
Kieran
Edit My Images
Yes
would like to sell these 2 lens and get a better quality all rounder

sigma 17-70mm os hsm f2.8-f4
sigma 50-150mm hsm f2.8 (non os)

looking at about £500 for the pair?

after something fast in low light with low end aswell as zoom
to acompany my 50mm prime

will be use for portrait, flowers birds

looking at the 18-200 vr ii f3.5-5.6
18-300 vr but only f3.5-5.6
sigma/nikon/tameon 24-70mm
sigma 70-300 f2.8

im really unsure any advice at all would be good

i tend to be using the 17-70mm more than anything

heard nothing but brilliant things about 24-70mm
 
Last edited:
The 18-200 and 18-300 will be no good in low light really, that's what 2.8 are for.

There is just no lens that gives you 2.8 at both ends of the spectrum. Sadly, "All-Rounder" and "better quality" don't go together.

You've only just bought the 50-150 2.8 haven't you? What is wrong with it?

Have you consider a flash for low light? Is it indoors you are talking about?
 
There is no good all rounder thats anywhere as good as these 2 lenses.
 
Hi Kieran

I wouldn't sell your lenses and buy an all in one - I think you'd be disappointed with the results.

What are you finding wrong / limiting with your 2 lenses ?
 
quailty when wide open, i seam to always have to opt back to the cheaper 50mm prime,

the sigma is a good lens but isnt very crisp when zoomed its good but no brilliant as expected

as said i dont want to be disapointed with selling 2 lens for 1,

inside i have a yongnuo yn560 ii, just waiting for my wireless trigger to arrive, but yet again when used in doors for portrait id opt back to the prime
 
KieranSLR said:
quailty when wide open, ........the sigma is a good lens but isnt very crisp when zoomed its good but no brilliant as expected ........as said i dont want to be disapointed with selling 2 lens for 1,
Click to expand...

I think you would be more disappointed with an all in one over the 2 you have.

Might be better, if you have issues with a lens, to look at an upgrade of that lens
 
andyred said:
I think you would be more disappointed with an all in one over the 2 you have.

Might be better, if you have issues with a lens, to look at an upgrade of that lens
Click to expand...

the upgrade from the 17-70mm would be the 24-70mm? 2.8 for the constant 2.8
 
KieranSLR said:
the upgrade from the 17-70mm would be the 24-70mm? 2.8 for the constant 2.8
Click to expand...

Can't help you with Nikon directly, sorry as I'm an Canon bod.

I would have thought someone Nikon wise will be along soon and advise of this.

Don't forget about Nikon's own lenses in this range - although they'll carry a price tag like the Canon's do...
 
How old is the Sigma lens ? Is it under warranty ?

If so, could be worth contacting Sigma to have a look at it ...
 
KieranSLR said:
the upgrade from the 17-70mm would be the 24-70mm? 2.8 for the constant 2.8
Click to expand...

Losing 17-23mm is a big range to be missing. You are getting less of a all rounder. If you want constant 2.8 look at the sigma or tamron 17-50 f/2.8, or better still nikons 17-55, but again you have less of an all rounder. You need to decide if its a constant f2.8 you want or a all rounder you can't have both.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
Losing 17-23mm is a big range to be missing. You are getting less of a all rounder. If you want constant 2.8 look at the sigma or tamron 17-50 f/2.8, or better still nikons 17-55, but again you have less of an all rounder. You need to decide if its a constant f2.8 you want or a all rounder you can't have both.
Click to expand...

i have constant 2.8 from 50-150 but not bellow that
whats quailty like on the sigma/tamron equivalents of the 17-50 and 24-70?
 
There are loads of threads about the 17-50 2.8 Tamron........ its very good........ its not a Nikon 17-55 2.8, but that lens costs at least twice or three times as much.

At around £200ish 2nd hand, the Tamron 2.8 Non-VC is certainly value for money.

I'd suggest a search for each of the lenses you are interested in..... there's loads of info already on here. :)
 
Hi Kieran

Just to echo much of the above. You have two well-regarded lenses there and I would be VERY suprised if you manage to replace these with anything giving the fast aperture and flexibility of these in a single lens.

Personally, I would ditch the 17-70 for a Tammy 17-50 f2.8.

All the third party 24-70s I have tried have been disapointing, so for that matter have been the uber-expensive Caion ones ! I would not go there again.

Good luck in your choice.

Gary
 
gary43 said:
Hi Kieran

Just to echo much of the above. You have two well-regarded lenses there and I would be VERY suprised if you manage to replace these with anything giving the fast aperture and flexibility of these in a single lens.

Personally, I would ditch the 17-70 for a Tammy 17-50 f2.8.

All the third party 24-70s I have tried have been disapointing, so for that matter have been the uber-expensive Caion ones ! I would not go there again.

Good luck in your choice.

Gary
Click to expand...

the lens i woukd get sell would be the sigma il see if i can find a nice 17-50mm

advice is much appricated

what price are the 17-50mm sigma/ tamron
 
Hi Kieran

In my view the Sigma gives a slight yellow cast so would go for the Tammy 17-50f2.8.

The non-VC is weirdly more highly rated. I have had it in both Sony and Canon mounts and loved it. Used, you should pay about £200. OOI, to replace it I got the Canon 16-35f2.8LII which is better in some ways but cost over 5X the price ! The Tamron is much better in terms of bang-for-buck.

Best wishes.

Gary
 
gary43 said:
Hi Kieran

In my view the Sigma gives a slight yellow cast so would go for the Tammy 17-50f2.8.

The non-VC is weirdly more highly rated. I have had it in both Sony and Canon mounts and loved it. Used, you should pay about £200. OOI, to replace it I got the Canon 16-35f2.8LII which is better in some ways but cost over 5X the price ! The Tamron is much better in terms of bang-for-buck.

Best wishes.

Gary
Click to expand...

sounds a good lens but really cheap! which i suppose is good but im always skeptical on the cheap stuff
 
will now be getting rid of the 50mm prime 1.8G, never use as low as 1.8 for portrait il be keep the 50-150mm
 
Hi Kieran

Have seen some of my favourite portrait photos and landscapes (from different photographers) taken with this lens. Do not let the cheap price put you off. If purchased off here you could ask for test shots prior to purchase to confirm the sharpness/condition/age of the lens. I regard this and the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 VERY highly. The 28-75 is IMHO better than the Canon 24-70L again at a fraction of the price.

Regards

Gary
 
gary43 said:
I regard this and the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 VERY highly. The 28-75 is IMHO better than the Canon 24-70L again at a fraction of the price.

Regards

Gary
Click to expand...

Oh no you've kicked up a right storm with this comment!;)
 
Last edited:
Hi rjbel, have had a couple of 24-70 L lenses for wedding work. Was not overwhelmed with either so got a 24LII for the job. The Tammy 28-75 though I was most happy with. Would get another if I was in the market for such FL. Just my £0.02 worth, of course. Regards

Gary
 
just took picture of my son 8 weeks, and for newborn 50mm is definitely too close for inside work
so out of them all highest regarding is the cheaper tamron 17-50 Non VC model?
by budget will be around £350 2nd hand,
so its between 24-70mm one of the cheaper options sigma/tamron
 
Last edited:
for people who own the tamron whats in like in low light in doors focus wise does it hunt alot
 
KieranSLR said:
just took picture of my son 8 weeks, and for newborn 50mm is definitely too close for inside work
so out of them all highest regarding is the cheaper tamron 17-50 Non VC model?
by budget will be around £350 2nd hand,
so its between 24-70mm one of the cheaper options sigma/tamron
Click to expand...

The non VC is £270 new and the VC is £319 (Park Cameras with 5 year guarantee). The non VC used to come out top in tests, but that was a few years ago and now the consensus is that the VC is just as sharp with the added benefit of VC. I have been doing a lot of research and have come to the conclusion that it is either a non-VC that is used and a bargain, or a brand new UK (warranty) VC version tat I will buy. I am swaying to the new VC even though it is pretty much twice the price of a keenly priced used non-VC. Then again the used Nikon 17-55 keeps winking at me.
 
:bonk:
Milkfloat said:
The non VC is £270 new and the VC is £319 (Park Cameras with 5 year guarantee). The non VC used to come out top in tests, but that was a few years ago and now the consensus is that the VC is just as sharp with the added benefit of VC. I have been doing a lot of research and have come to the conclusion that it is either a non-VC that is used and a bargain, or a brand new UK (warranty) VC version tat I will buy. I am swaying to the new VC even though it is pretty much twice the price of a keenly priced used non-VC. Then again the used Nikon 17-55 keeps winking at me.
Click to expand...


what do the used nikons go for?
think id buy a new VC if i went for the 17-50mm

debates on 17-50mm vc
or 24-70mm

i hate choices
 
KieranSLR said:
:bonk:


what do the used nikons go for?
think id buy a new VC if i went for the 17-50mm

debates on 17-50mm vc
or 24-70mm

i hate choices
Click to expand...

The 24-70 i not a good choice for your camera its focal range is designed for a full frame camera. The 17-50 is the equivalent range on a crop camera. Just set your sigma to 24mm and see how much you would be missing not having the 17-23mm.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
The 24-70 i not a good choice for your camera its focal range is designed for a full frame camera. The 17-50 is the equivalent range on a crop camera. Just set your sigma to 24mm and see how much you would be missing not having the 17-23mm.
Click to expand...

i don think id actually miss the 7mm difference i rarely shoot under 28mm
 
KieranSLR said:
what do the used nikons go for?
Click to expand...
Used Nikon 17-55 go for between £500 and £600, have a look in the classifieds.

Why do you feel you need the VC model? (at extra cost), even zoomed at 50mm you'd wouldn't need that quick a shutter speed for hand holding.

I've got the non VC version and never really missed it.
 
KieranSLR said:
i don think id actually miss the 7mm difference i rarely shoot under 28mm
Click to expand...

Not sure how old your little one is, but if it hasn't started moving yet, you'll soon need as wide as you can when the do. (from experience) :lol:
 
little one is 8 weeks so plenty of time

as for the VC been told its the better option?
do they do a non VC on the 24-70mm cant seam to find many prices on the 24-70mm
 
Zarch said:
Why do you feel you need the VC model? (at extra cost), even zoomed at 50mm you'd wouldn't need that quick a shutter speed for hand holding.

I've got the non VC version and never really missed it.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on the available light and how steady you are. I would like the option of using 1/60 that I would hope the VC would give me. To be honest, I have not compared the two in real life, but think I would prefer to have the VC just in case. If I could find a non-VC for around £150 then I would be tempted to try it out knowing that I would probably not lose on a resale if I find it lacking.
 
KieranSLR said:
little one is 8 weeks so plenty of time
Click to expand...

I'd personally prefer to buy looking ahead, but each to their own. :p

KieranSLR said:
as for the VC been told its the better option?
Click to expand...
If you do a forum search about the Tamron 17-50, the non-VC has better feedback than the VC version. (and I know I did tons of searching when I was looking to get mine) ;)

Plus, lens reviews say the same if you google them.
 
Last edited:
Milkfloat said:
I guess that depends on the available light and how steady you are. I would like the option of using 1/60 that I would hope the VC would give me. To be honest, I have not compared the two in real life, but think I would prefer to have the VC just in case.
Click to expand...

Fair comment. But it appears (from reviews and feedback) that addition of VC comes at the cost of lens/image sharpness.
 
KieranSLR said:
little one is 8 weeks so plenty of time

as for the VC been told its the better option?
do they do a non VC on the 24-70mm cant seam to find many prices on the 24-70mm
Click to expand...

There is no vc version of the nikon 24-70.
 
I would argue you do not need vc on this sort of focal range. you should manage 1/80 maybe 1/60 at 50mm without vc. You will need faster shutter speeds than both of these shooting kids, they don't sit still.
 
Last edited:
Zarch said:
Fair comment. But it appears (from reviews and feedback) that addition of VC comes at the cost of lens/image sharpness.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that it was the early VCs that were not as sharp and the newer ones are OK. Anyone correct me if I am wrong as I am getting very close to splashing the cash on a new VC.
 
Milkfloat said:
I was under the impression that it was the early VCs that were not as sharp and the newer ones are OK. Anyone correct me if I am wrong as I am getting very close to splashing the cash on a new VC.
Click to expand...

I'm curious too because i've not heard anywhere that the vc is as good as the non vc. I too did my research before buying and the price difference was only £60-£70 at the time if i remember rightly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top