Zoom lens, wide angle, even macro - which one?

phinix

phinix

Messages
632
Edit My Images
No
Hello everyone!
This is my first post on this forum...

I'm trying to pick a great zoom lens with wide angle (17-18) to replace Sony 18-70 kit lens for my A300. What I'm looking is kit replacement, for portraits, macros and walkaround lens (holiday trips). I know I cannot have all that in one lens, I wanted to buy Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro, but that would be for portraits and macros only I believe, so I may need to get some zoom first like I was suggested in other forums... I'm going on a trip and was thinking of changing my kit zoom first, than buying that sigma macro lens. Year ago I wanted to get Tamron 18-250, but I think that wouldn't be so sharp, colorful, fast lens like other ones, so please help me to choose.

What I need is:

* wide angle - 17-18
* bright one - f2.8 would be great if that was through the full range
* macro option would be an advantage (1:2 maybe?)
* price - sth for max £250-300


I checked it on different websites and I know that for example Tamron 17-50 2.8, Sigma 17-70, 18-50 would be great, but I'm pretty noob in DSLRs and don't see differences between those lens. I know you guys are great and can help me to decide and show those differences. Maybe someone who has them could show some photos examples..

thanks for help again!
 
The Tamron won't be a macro but the two Sigma's can focus in close (about 1:2 on the 17-70). Tamron also the more expensive one but probably the sharpest in IQ with the 18-50 very close but the 17-70 ain't bad either. I just sold my 17-70 for the Tamron but it hasn't arrived yet.
 
the 17-70 isnt a constant aperture either, and is a longer focal length so more range.
 
kman said:
The Tamron won't be a macro but the two Sigma's can focus in close (about 1:2 on the 17-70). Tamron also the more expensive one but probably the sharpest in IQ with the 18-50 very close but the 17-70 ain't bad either. I just sold my 17-70 for the Tamron but it hasn't arrived yet.
Click to expand...

Why did you sell 17-70?
 
fletch5 said:
the 17-70 isnt a constant aperture either, and is a longer focal length so more range.
Click to expand...

I know that, that is the problem:) I'm not sure what I could get more profit from - longer at the end or full 2.8?
Full 2.8 would be better for indoor photos. What about that additional 20 in length? 50 vs 70.. I could make few steps forward to get to that 70 with 50 I guess:)
I don't want to spend a lot fo money right now, so need to get one lens.
I wanted to get Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro. I'm afraid to be too much restrictive with this prime. I could keep kit lens and play with macro.
I would love to make macros and portrtaits that is why this Sigma 50mm would be perfect I guess. But I could also try to sell kit lens and then get 17-70 or 18-50.

What should I do?? :(
 
kman said:
Wanted the f/2.8 constant max aperture (take a lot of indoor/lowlight shots)
Click to expand...

Was that 4.5 at the end anoying? Will you miss that extra 20 at the end?
Can you show some marco shots from 17-70 please?
 
personally phinix, i think i would keep the kit lens and get the 50. it will open up the macro side and give you better quality for your portraits which is where your interests seem to be. if you need anything wider you can use the kit lens until you upgrade that(y)
 
fletch5 said:
personally phinix, i think i would keep the kit lens and get the 50. it will open up the macro side and give you better quality for your portraits which is where your interests seem to be. if you need anything wider you can use the kit lens until you upgrade that(y)
Click to expand...

That's right Fletch! That is the way to go:)

Now.. Who's got Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro for sale with Sony mount? :(
 
I went for a walk hour ago and played with my kit lens.
I just realised that long end for zoom I'm looking for is not that importnat, I mean difference between 50 and 70 is pretty small! Ha:) Am I a noob or what! :)
Took a picture of a tree from 50 and then measured on lens how long I would have to step forward to reach same angle at 70.. That was one step..
So, I believe I will benefit a LOT from getting constant 2.8 18-50 lens, than getting 17-70 2.8-4.5 - as you guys said before, 2.8 is more important, especially when you make photos indoor with low light...

But first... Sigma 50mm:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top