F2.8 lens or stick with kit lens?

macs

macs

Suspended / Banned
Messages
794
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I realise that this might be somewhat of a 'how long is a piece of string' type question but how much 'better' is a f2.8 lens over standard kit lens which is 3.5-5.6?

I have heard that 2.8 lenses are tangiably better than a kit lens so I have looked around and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 seems to be not only a good deal on price but also a pretty darn good lens as well.

I normally shoot landscapes, architecture, and candid portraits of my family. I know that a aperture of 2.8 wont be of any use to my landscapes but i'm wondering if the 2.8 will be any better than my kit lens for indoor photography and architecture.

Sorry if this is an obvious question but equipment is my weakness in terms of knowledge.
 
One of the main advantages is that the Tamron lens you're looking at will allow an aperture of F2.8 through the whole zoom range of the lens instead of f3.5 at the lower end and f5.6 at the higher zoom range of your kit lens.
 
2.8 is pretty nice for indoor use where its often surprisingly dull, the extra wideness might help with landscapes

im really happy with my sony 16-50 f2.8
 
"Faster" glass is always welcomed, as not only does it have advantages in low light, it also allows more creative control regarding depth of field.
 
How much better is a subjective question. I don't think anyone can say it's 10%, 20% better or whatever.

But I had the Tamron lens back when I shot on APS-C and I loved it. Sharp and fast to focus. I never used my kit lens again until it was time to sell.
 
I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and its a superb lens... very sharp at 2.8 and stunningly sharp at f4.

Mine had slight front focus issues but got it back within 5 days and perfect so can't complain at all, great lens and Tamron offer great customer service along with a 5year warranty you can't go wrong.

Jump in I say! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top