tamron 17-50mm question

mastertrinity

mastertrinity

Messages
3,614
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
i have already decided that im gonna get the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 instead of sony's new 30mm f2.8 macro because of flexibility. but i then wondered "i already have a 50 f1.7, so do i need it now?" so what do you think, is it really worth keeping the 50mm, when i get cash i was gonna upgrade to the sony 50mm f1.4 but it might not even be worth it if the tamron does it all.

post us your thoughts. oh and by the way i am a portrait photographer.
 
Hi, hopefully I should be able to share some of my thoughts- I did own all three lenses you mentioned above. In short I think you should keep the 50mm prime, until you replace it with something alike. The Tamron just would not do shallow depth of field & low light shooting as the 50mm primes.

The Tamron is a fine walk about lens, light and easy to handle. Whilst its not super sharp wide open, bang per buck its a capable performer. When I got this lens, I resigned the 18-70 kit from service. Personally I wouldn't class this as a portrait lens, as its too short (distortion etc), zooms are usually compromised at the extreme. As a kit lens replacement it's fab, the other choice in this range is the longer Sigma 17-70 or the cz 16-80.

Minolta 50mm 1.7- affordable prime, I would always recommend this lens if you're starting out and don't want to spend a fortune. Soft wide open, but it is an inexpensive way to get into taking nice portrait with 'blur'. My copy gave a slightly warmer tone than I wanted, the sony 50mm 1.4 is good .. but is it 4-5 times better to justify the price? Keep this one, the Tamron certainly will not replace this!

Sony 50mm 1.4- got this for a decent price, the central area of the lens is sharp wide open. Offers half a stop more light than the minolta, out of focus blur is good, suffers a bit from CA like all large apperture lens.

Maybe also consider a beercan (70-210mm f4), some say it's over rated, but it functions well as a portrait lens at the lengths 70-135. Being a zoom it's more flexible than the 50mm, has very nice bokeh/blur and affordable - you'll find a lot going on ebay for around £150. cons are:- soft wide open, suffers from a lot of CAs, and its heavier than your 55-200.
 
cheers evo456,

i was going for the tamron as more of a fashion portrait lens and i didnt think it mattered but you are right, it will suffer from the wide effect and end up making my models look fat.

i was going to get a 70-210 beercan but i will probably get the gorgeous 70-300mm G SSM.

i will definitely keep the 50mm, could you recommend any other good portrait lens for around £300, i cant buy sigmas as they have gear issues with sony.

cheers.
 
Not all Sigmas, if a majority of Sigmas suffer from gear stripping. The most widely known case is the 70-300mm. Unfortunately in Sony land, there aren't that many mid-range affordable lens. If portrait is your bag, I wouldn't hesistate to recommend the excellent 85mm in both minolta and sony guise, and equally as excellent in emptying your bank balance. Anyway alternatives:

Sony 50mm 1.8- not sure how this performs, I'm making assumptions here. New lens, better optics/coating? APS-C lens only, so may hinder any aspirations to go full frame in the short future.

Sigma 30mm 1.4 - ever thought your 50mm was too long? This is wider and is close to the 'true' 50mm focal length in 35mm terms. Shallow depth of field and low light shooting awaits, its a fairly chunky lens, it's good wide open- APS-C only

Tamron 60mm f/2 macro- a curve ball, new lens bit over budget. It has a slighty wider than usual f/2 for a macro lens, sharp optics are usually attributed to macros. APC-S only, and perhaps too close in terms of length to your 50mm.

Minolta 135 2.8- nice optics, but maybe a bit too long for crop cameras.

Sorry can't think of any more, but essentially you need to ask yourself whether you are happy with your pics? Why do you need to buy another lens, is the 50mm too long, too short, too soft? What type of portraits are you into? natural light? studio? head shots, head & sholders, 3/4 length, full body shots etc.
 
the primes are always good, but the tamron 17-50 has always performed well for others

i was looking at it, but for me 28-75 fit my portrait style better as most shots were 50+
 
mastertrinity said:
you know i completely forgot about the 28-75, i will have to consider that
Click to expand...


examples found in link in sig

i do like the zoom f2.8's. will want one for my d90. i see alot of 17-50 for sale, but the range isn't much use for what i use it for to be honest, as i prefer the 70mm range
 
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is very good in low light.
Various reviews I have read about the 28-75 f/2.8 have critised it for not being good in low light.
I owned a 28-75 f/2.8 for a few days and have to say that I agree.
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VR is my latest purchase and I am really impressed with it.
I used it in anger at a family function last weekend and the lighting was really dire.
The Tamron saved the day and I'm impressed with the results.
 
i very rarely do low light at the moment the only thing closest to it was my aunts wedding but i had to get by with the dreaded kit zoom:gag: because i needed the width that limited the 50mm to the kit bag.

this is why i think i need a fast aperture kit zoom so that in times of need it can save me, if i get the 28-75mm then i would have a quite decent fast aperture range due to the 28-75mm, 50mm and then the tamron 90mm macro.
 
mastertrinity said:
this is why i think i need a fast aperture kit zoom so that in times of need it can save me, if i get the 28-75mm then i would have a quite decent fast aperture range due to the 28-75mm, 50mm and then the tamron 90mm macro.
Click to expand...

The 28-75 has just the same max ap as the 17-50, and I'd say the 17-50 is a more useful range on a crop body.
 
evo456 said:
The Tamron is a fine walk about lens, light and easy to handle. Whilst its not super sharp wide open, bang per buck its a capable performer. When I got this lens, I resigned the 18-70 kit from service.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the same with me; got the 17-50mm for the fast constant aperture and although it pained me, it's effectively, from day one, replaced my much-loved and impressive 18-70mm on my Nikon.

Contrary to Evo though I like mine for portrait work on my D200 at the 50mm end; good DoF fall-off and super-sharp.

I've just recommended this lens to a guy in the office who's teaming it up with his 7D - he's massively impressed with it, especially seeing as it costs a third of the Canon version.

I know very little about the Sigma alternatives, only that the Tamrons are much more reliable straight out of the box; mis-focussing issues abound with Sigmas.

That's my tuppenth about that lens. I know very little else about Sony/Minolta-fit lenses so I'll leave the rest to people who do.... :)
 
blows me away everytime on canon

I have considered dumping my 50/1.4 a few times as I use it quite infrequently but I occasionally need another 2 stops :S
 
I have the Minolta 50mm f1.7, 28-75mm f2.8 and the Beercan 70-210 f4. All are excellent for Portraiture. But I prefer to use the Tamron 90mm f2.8, offers great bokeh and tack sharp images on my a700.
 
i am planning on getting a tamron 90mm because it does seem like a brilliant for my portraits aswell as my "fine" art.

i hear theres a new sony 28-75mm f2.8 out. it might be £200 dearer but it could be worth it, i might wait to hear what the reviewers say about it.
 
if anyone is still interested, my tamron 28-75 f2.8 is still up for grab
check out the classifieds for more info.

once i sell this i will be looking at a similar version for my nikon
 
Hisquar09 said:
After all the lenses I bought for the 350D...plugging the gap....I ended up buying the 5D and 24-105 when Jessops did an amazing price, the lens worked out at 400 quid i think....selling the 350D and lesser lenses made me realize I might as well have spent the money to begin with on the right stuff.

Not sure how good the Tamron will be in terms or resolution 21MP is huge if you use it on the 5DII?
Click to expand...

17-50 is crop only ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top