Nid Advice: Sigma 24-70 2.8/ Tamron 17-50 2.8 / Tamron 28-75 2.8 / tokina 28-70

[ekocruz]

went to hidalgo yesterday to buy either 28-75 or 17-50vc (both tammy)

kulang ang 28 sa wide end. and vr helps alot.... ALOT!

parehong ok sa sharpness and performance based sa nakita ko sa watsons.

i got the 17-50vc...happy ako

• Tweet

[domainmaster]

Do not buy the Tokina 28-70 f2.8.

A lot of people I know who has this lens complains of backfocusing at various apertures, most at 70mm. You'll be lucky if you can get it calibrated.

I'd go with the Sigma for sports - because of the awesome AF speed, Tamron for general purpose/portraits - it's sharp as hell on all mounts, just be sure to test the copy you're buying.

• Tweet

[philander]

Bumpie!


I'm also thinking what to choose from these two: Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Tamron 28-75 2.8

Dont know if 17mm is more important than a lens that can reach 75mm.

Im assuming if you will invest with a wideangle lens, then the 28-75 would be a better choice,

What if you will invest with 70-200 2.8 lens, which is a better buy?

• Tweet

[pitbull]

kung crop body ka,importante yan

• Tweet

[ricworks]

Bumpie!


I'm also thinking what to choose from these two: Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Tamron 28-75 2.8

Dont know if 17mm is more important than a lens that can reach 75mm.

Im assuming if you will invest with a wideangle lens, then the 28-75 would be a better choice,

What if you will invest with 70-200 2.8 lens, which is a better buy?

ako rin naguguluhan din kung 17-50 or 28-75 for my future buy.
i know its all about compromises. anyways, heres my take..

17-50  (26-75mm range in SLR terms) if you shoot more landscapes than portraits, and willing to compromise 75mm max zoom  (to me, 75mm max is bitin esp for portraits

28-75  ( 42-112mm range) i think this is a very good walk-around lens (low light, indoor,outdoor,street = all-rounder).
42mm will give decent wide shots (its still a bit 'wider' than standard 35 1.8 lens )
and the 75-112mm advantage is very handy for not getting too close to the subject (esp people). 
it has good bokeh too for close-up portraits  

OT:
i would even take this vs ( carrying 35 1.8 + 85 1.8 fixed lens combo) because of..
1) can shoot almost instantly without the hassle of changing lens (im ok to compromise 2.8 vs brighter 1.8 lens) 
2) additional 75-112mm (SLR terms) on tele end gives optical zoom in flexibility which means less zooming with your feet
3) zoom flexibility helps for better framing; and less time for cropping later on

if i really need a a bit more wide angle than tamron 28-75, i will keep my cheap but reliable 18-55 for that purpose. if there is one lens i need to carry, that would be tamron 28-75.

even if i plan to get 70-200 later on, i would still pick 28-75 over 17-50.  i would lose 50-70mm (important-to-me) range if i take 17-50 + 70-200 combo.  thats just me.

• Tweet

[pogzz505]

Bumpie!


I'm also thinking what to choose from these two: Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Tamron 28-75 2.8

Dont know if 17mm is more important than a lens that can reach 75mm.

Im assuming if you will invest with a wideangle lens, then the 28-75 would be a better choice,

What if you will invest with 70-200 2.8 lens, which is a better buy?

kung di ka mahilig sa wide shots (not necessarily landscape use lang) puwede kang walang 17mm..

pero try this..from 50mm you only need 1 step to reach an additional 20mm..

from 28mm to reach 17mm will take many steps backwards..

• Tweet

[Jomi]

Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (No BIM) + Nikon D80
focuses fast on a screw drive

• Tweet

[ricworks]

kung di ka mahilig sa wide shots (not necessarily landscape use lang) puwede kang walang 17mm..>> true, thats me

pero try this..from 50mm you only need 1 step to reach an additional 20mm..

from 28mm to reach 17mm will take many steps backwards..

i already have 18-55 and will keep it. there is no need to duplicate the same range.

the extra 51-75mm would be handy for close-up portraits (it could also be more pleasing coz of slightly narrower angle) vs 50mm max.
28-75 zoom flexibility would already cover most of my shooting needs and is my best compromise to get as near (never equal) to higher performance/price of the trio fixed bright lens (35, 50 and 85 all f/1..

both 17-50 and 28-75 are already good lens for their worth. in the end, its all about compromises and personal shooting priorities. just choose a lens according to your needs, then live with it, enjoy it 

• Tweet

[memphis]

i have my 17-50 and 28-75 before.. but just ended up using my 35 and 85, having a fix 1.8 is still a big advantage. but if i could get the nikkor 17-55 then i will let go of my 35 and get an additional toki 11-16 2.8 to complete my line up.

• Tweet

[philander]

Question about these two lenses:
Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Tamron 28-75 2.8


Are these compatible with full frame format?

How can I know that a Tamron lens is full-frame compatible or cropped-sensor compatible only?

Thanks.

• Tweet

[chocman]

Question about these two lenses:
Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Tamron 28-75 2.8


Are these compatible with full frame format?

How can I know that a Tamron lens is full-frame compatible or cropped-sensor compatible only?

Thanks.

As far as I know, the 17-50 is for cropped, the 28-75 is FF.  The relevant Tamron designation for these is Di-II for the former, and Di for the latter.

• Tweet

[philander]

As far as I know, the 17-50 is for cropped, the 28-75 is FF.  The relevant Tamron designation for these is Di-II for the former, and Di for the latter.

Thanks. This is helpful.

• Tweet

[robertlastrillajr]

24-70, 28-75 kinda too long for a walkabout lens on a cropped body. you would suffer on the wide end, when you need shots in tight spaces. 17-50 more versatile. IMHO.

• Tweet

[philander]

Question...

If I am to use these lenses with a flash attached (on-shoe) always/100% (TTL or manual). Will I still get the benefit of 2.8f?

Thanks.

• Tweet

[bo2oc]

try nyo po ito,
they posted pictures using different lenses and brands
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/

naghahanap rin ako pampalit sa kitlens ko

mukhang ok yung tamron 17-50mm
pero alin ba mas bet nyo the vc or the non-vc?

• Tweet

[robertlastrillajr]

if you can afford it, go for the VC version. lots of people say the nonVC is sharper, but i haven't had the chance to sample the nonVC version yet. my VC version is sharp enough for me, is on my cam 75% of the time. also, many question the need for VC on such a short focal range. however i am spoiled with VC/IS/VR/OS no matter how wide the focal length is. i just love them. here's a shot taken with a 2 second exposure, VC on, handheld. i just leaned against a post for added support. focal length is 17mm.




i rest my case  


 

• Tweet

[Kingnino6]

un nga raw sabi... sigma is soft and tamrons AF system is slow... so i guess tamron would be better with regards to image output then...... just when i was planning to buy sigma 24-70 and 70-200 2.8s next month.... mahal kaseh ng nikon.... pag ipunan nalang cguro ung nikon lenses then...

• Tweet

[enew]

sigma -> wag na wag, basta!
tamron -> 17-50 is a great lens just get a good copy! I used to have one, i loved it.
Tokina -> hmmm matibay, ok yung 11-16 UWA nya but never tried the 28-70

Pero kung may pera, go nikon or canon.

• Tweet

[dean]

Question...

If I am to use these lenses with a flash attached (on-shoe) always/100% (TTL or manual). Will I still get the benefit of 2.8f?

Thanks.

f/2.8 isn't just for low-light usage.  you can also use it to isolate your subject from the background.  when shooting group shots or an entire scene in dark places, your f/2.8 won't be of much help.

• Tweet

[philippaul]

for me tokina is soft @ 2.8, pero mabilis.. ayaw ko din ng sigma.. kaya para sa akin tamron is great 3rd party lens.. 

• Tweet