considering Tamron 17-50 as a replacement to a 35mm f1.8

jamin100

jamin100

Messages
1,208
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey people,

I currently have a D90, Tamron 28-75 f2.8, Nikon 35mm f1.8 & Nikon 50mm f1.8.

I'm wondering if I should sell the Tamron 28-75 & 35mm to get a Tamron 17-50 (non VC). I mainly shoot portraits and candids and as my kids are not to old yet they are never too far away that i need a long 70-200.

I do however find that sometimes they come really close and if i've got the 28-75 on then I miss the shot because they are just to close to the end of the camera.

So, would selling the 2 lenses and getting the 17-50 to go alongside my 50mm be a wise move?

What are the 2nd hand prices of the 17-50mm (non VC) nowadays?
 
Great choice - it's a good lens. Good minimum focussing distance.

Price-wise then £160-£200 used, depending on seller and condition.
 
specialman said:
Great choice - it's a good lens. Good minimum focussing distance.

Price-wise then £160-£200 used, depending on seller and condition.
Click to expand...

thanks, is it worth selling the 35 and 28-75 for though?

Eventually i'd like to have the 17-50, 50mm 1.8 and a 80-200 (or maybe 70-200 depending on £££) I'm just wondering if i would miss the 51-79mm focal range ??????
 
Last edited:
Is it worth selling the 28-75? If you use that long end (50-75mm) then maybe,

You'd probably need to sell just the 28-75 to fund s 17-50. I'd keep the 35mm for low light or when you need ultra shallow DoF.

The gap between 50mm and 70mm if you do get a long zoom isn't much loss in reality. I only have that gap filled between my 17-55 and 70-200 with a 60mm macro because I shoot a lot if closeup work. You'll live with it in all honesty.
 
I just bought that lens, except with OS, as a gift for my son, to go with my old D80 I was passing down to him prior to his wedding. I tried it out a bit, and found it to be sharp and accurate in focusing; it's fairly light and easy to carry; and it provides an image with good contrast and depth of color.

All-in-all, I think it's a very nice lens at roughly half the price of a Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8. I was fortunate to be able to test it thoroughly in store before purchase, so that put my mind at ease vis a vis sharpness, focus issues, build quality, etc.
 
I am a big fan of the 35 / 1.8 and would hold on to it in your situation; selling the 28-75 and 50mm should allow you to get the 17-50.
 
The 28-75mm is more use on full frame TBH, on a crop body it's neither one thing or the other

I'd sell it and the 50mm then go for the 17-50mm

The 35mm f/1.8 is roughly the same as the 50mm on a FF body which was the kit lens of choice for 50 years
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the comments so far, I definatly don't want to get rid of the 50 a I like it better than the 35. I find it focuses faster
 
I've got a similar set of lenses, picked up the 17-50 recently. The 35 comes in handy as it's so light and great focal length, useful to shove in the bag if I'm out walking.

Agree the 28-75 is probably not so much use on crop body. Unless you're going to get into film or FF then I'd sell that and keep the others.
 
They are different if I could only have one I'd have the Tamron zoom but I'd rather have them both. My D40+35 is a brilliant lightweight combo to take everywhere but there are plenty of times where the versatility of a 2.8 17-50 is quite desirable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top