Fast prime or fast zoom?

lucky_13

lucky_13

Messages
624
Name
Billy
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok I've been wanting to get a fast prime like the Canon 50mm f/1.4 but also I want a zoom too and I was thinking why not hit 2 birds with one stone and get the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8! Now I know the Tamron has a slow AF motor and has no VC but neither has the 50! (well the 50 has usm) but no IS and both these lenses are as sharp as one another @ f2.8 so I wouldn't loose any sharpness by getting the tamron instead of the 50.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. So please feel free to express your selves.
 
What is it you want them for? They're very different lenses that'll be quite different to shoot with. The 50 is relatively small and very bright with that f/1.4 aperture, so much better in low light situations (2 stops), whereas the tamron will be a heavy lump, but longer with more flexibility in the focal length.
 
in my very limited experience I'd disagree with your last statement regarding not losing sharpness by getting a Tamron zoom, I've owned two primes both 50mm one a Nikon f1.4 and my current prime a sigma f2.8 and they're both sharper than a sharp thing !
 
mrgas said:
in my very limited experience I'd disagree with your last statement regarding not losing sharpness by getting a Tamron zoom, I've owned two primes both 50mm one a Nikon f1.4 and my current prime a sigma f2.8 and they're both sharper than a sharp thing !
Click to expand...

I value ur opinion but the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is Sharp...
 
squishy said:
What is it you want them for? They're very different lenses that'll be quite different to shoot with. The 50 is relatively small and very bright with that f/1.4 aperture, so much better in low light situations (2 stops), whereas the tamron will be a heavy lump, but longer with more flexibility in the focal length.
Click to expand...

I want to be able to shoot in low light, I want shallow depth of field to isolate the subject and the flexibility of a zoom. the weight and size dosen't worry me much.
 
I would go for the prime. Having no VR is a non issue in this matter as the 50 is faster, lighter and shorter than the Tamron 70-200. In terms of handholdability in the same low light conditions, you will be getting less keepers with the Tamron unless you stick it on a tripod/monopod.
 
I've never had a prime but it looks like there are a favourite. Will have to give it a try. I do like photographing still life..
 
Last edited:
Fast prime is an entirely different beast. Just make sure you know which focal length you want; a fifty and a 70-200 are quite different.

How's about buying a cheap 50/1.8? Should tell you everything you need to know about primes, and if they're not for you sell it and lose a couple of tenners only.
 
There really isn't much a 50 prime and a 70-200 zoom are going to have in common. But if size isn't an issue and you don't think 70 is going to be too long for the situations you have in mind, go for the 70-200.
I say this only because if you're wrong, you can easily fix your mistake by getting the remarkable 50/1.8 II for around 70 quid these days. ;)
 
I think to be fair you're trying to compare apples and oranges here

the two lenses are entirely different beasts
 
Your statement here suggests you will have to lose some requirements as you can't have all 3 with the two choices you have given.

"I want to be able to shoot in low light, I want shallow depth of field to isolate the subject and the flexibility of a zoom"

Low light and shallow depth of field the Canon 50 f1.4. The 1.4 would allow shallow depth of field from a better distance and operate in much lower light
Flexibility of a zoom, well there is only one choice here and if you are veering towards prime was flexibility of a zoom not actually required at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top