Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or Nikkor 35 f1.8?

ShoeQueen

ShoeQueen

Messages
2,370
Name
Lynn
Edit My Images
No
I have a D90 and 18-105VR kit lens and a 50 f1.8 (which I got s/h so was cheap).

I find the 50mm a bit long sometimes but love the faster lens for low light so had been thinking of adding a 35mm f1.8, which seems like a great value lens for the money.

But reading round some threads I'm wondering if a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 might be a better investment? (And I gather the non VC version is better?)

I know its a good all round lens, would it be useful for portraits?
 
I ended up buying both, IQ wise you cannot fault the Tamron. I think your answer will depend mainly by seeing if you use the 18-24 range of your lens a lot if you do maybe the 35mm will be quite long. If you don't then just get the 35mm.

Of course second hand the pair can be had for 350£ so maybe buy both? :)
 
I would love to buy both, for now though I'll just get one. What's the Tamron like wide open?

I've read the non VC is a bit better than the VC version?
 
I got the 35mm lens. it is a must have for any body owns a Nikon dx camera. if you are after low light performance , f2.8 just won't cut it.
 
I have the same issue! I also got the 35mm 1.8 but was looking to get the Tamron 17-50mm. Im confused about the vc & non vc myself. Dont want to make a mistake! :/
 
The VC is reportedly not as good IQ wise as the non VC reports say it is softer than then non VC. VC is Tamron's image stabilisation system, which in this lens is apparently quite primitive anyway so you don't gain much by having it.

As I said before get the non-VC and just push the ISO on your camera a couple of notches up to compensate for slow shutter if you have to. In the D7000 is fairly safe to do as the noise levels are kept well under control up to 1600-3200 and with a bit of careful post processing even higher than that.

The non-VC Tamron even wide open performs brilliantly. I do not have side to side pictures with the 35mm but I can try and produce some as I still own both for my D40.
 
Good to hear the Tamron is good wide open, I suppose I'm wanting it for reasonable low light performance, and to give me more flexibility when I find the 50mm too close.

I don't have to slow the shutter that much in some of the low light situations as I use bounced flash but that's because I want to take shots of dancers (usually just disco lights and dimly light wall lights).
 
as said above, the 35 is a brilliant little lens. If you like the 50 and want a little wider, then the 35 is perfect. If you want the lens for wide group shots or for the 30mm and less range, then it isn't what you want. Sometimes I wish I had a 28 1.8 instead of 35. Then again sometimes I wish I had a 50 too. What I really want is a 15-70 f1.8 if such a beast existed.

Thanks,
Rick
 
If you need it only slightly wider as opposed to all the way down to 17 then the 35 might be in the end the better lens as it is over a stop faster, cheaper, lighter and faster to AF, and chances are it is a bit sharper too :)
 
casts_by_fly said:
as said above, the 35 is a brilliant little lens. If you like the 50 and want a little wider, then the 35 is perfect. If you want the lens for wide group shots or for the 30mm and less range, then it isn't what you want. Sometimes I wish I had a 28 1.8 instead of 35. Then again sometimes I wish I had a 50 too. What I really want is a 15-70 f1.8 if such a beast existed.

Thanks,
Rick
Click to expand...

It almost exists on m4/3s :) costs almost 2k though and it is not that wide. Reportedly a brilliant zoom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top