Limited by 50mm

I

intel86

Suspended / Banned
Messages
439
Edit My Images
No
I only have a 50mm Nifty and now feel limited by it. Nice lens though and i do love it.

I have been toying with getting maybe a Tamron 17-50. Should i keep the 50mm or then sell it to help finance the Tamron?

I like to shoot landscapes as well as protraits of my family and feel the 50mm is limiting in what i can do with it.

Is buying a good Tamron a bit of a lottery as to if one gets a good one or not?
 
Certainly only having the nifty fifty is limiting and the Tamron would be a good replacement or second lens.
 
I think that generally speaking Tamron are as reliable as any other 3rd party lens maker. Given the volumes they produce you would be unlucky to get a bad 'un.

Andy
 
I have both of those, bought in the same order you did. The Tamron is excellent, i did a bit of research before buying and there didn't seem to be an epidemic of "dodgy" copies around as there are with some lenses.

If narrow depth of field isn't your thing and you don't use the f1.8-2.8 range much, maybe you wouldn't miss the nifty fifty. However, personally i'd never let mine go - it just does something magical with the light sometimes that's special, whereas the Tamron is just competent and i love the large aperture. (there's an example of what i mean here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22423040@N00/3993898618/ - that's SOC with minimal processing).
 
Isn't it the classic rule to use a 50mm prime until you learn the art, then move to other lens? Sounds like you're the perfect example of that process!

I think the wider angle would help with landscape shots. I really like the challenges of shooting with prime lens, and love DOF, but also like enjoy a variety of FOV so I've got a 45mm prime along with a 100mm prime. I'm also quite keen to get a 28mm prime to go with them for the landscape shots, even though I've still got a kit 28-85mm that gets little to no use.
 
I guess i would keep the 50mm. It is a lovely lens (Not build!)
 
well I have both 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non VC)
when I'm out and about during the day I find myself using Tamron - it's a cracking lens

but when things get darker or I'm doing portraits nothing can beat 50mm and that lovely DOF.

So I would recommend keeping 50mm and getting Tamron.

Mind that AF on Tamron is quite noisy. But otherwise it's perfect.
 
I have non VC -why?

1st - Non VC is sharper
2nd - I don't really need IS and at these focal distances I don't see that much benefit of IS anyway
3rd - non VC is cheaper

So when I was buying Tamron 17-50(Non VC) it made more sense getting sharper cheaper lens without IS

but it's up to you, because it depends how are you going to use the lens, light conditions? moving/static objects? etc.
 
Last edited:
anthonys said:
Isn't it the classic rule to use a 50mm prime until you learn the art, then move to other lens? Sounds like you're the perfect example of that process!
Click to expand...

Not really, that's a bit of a hangover from the film days when 50mm was regarded as a standard lens. Something around 30 - 35mm gives the same FOV on a crop camera.

The nifty fifty is remarkable value for money and gives you the benefits of a fast lens, but I don't find 50mm very useful on a crop body. It's too long for a walk around lens and too short for a telephoto, although it's useful for portraits if that's what you want. The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 gets good reports - I haven't used one - and it would be a lot more versatile. I think I would keep the 50mm though. It's about 1 stop faster - double the amount of light for a given shutter speed - and offers shallower depth of field.
 
anza said:
I have non VC -why?
2nd - I don't really need IS and at these focal distances I don't see that much benefit of IS anyway
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with that statement, VC is of great benefit if you are going for a walk at dusk and there is a great sunset shot. You would be able to use a narrower aperture and still handhold the camera.

Another lens you should consider is the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DC Macro. It focuses faster and closer than the Tamron, however the extra 1mm at the wide end does make a big difference.
 
DaveKing said:
I'd disagree with that statement, VC is of great benefit if you are going for a walk at dusk and there is a great sunset shot. You would be able to use a narrower aperture and still handhold the camera.

Another lens you should consider is the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DC Macro. It focuses faster and closer than the Tamron, however the extra 1mm at the wide end does make a big difference.
Click to expand...

I agree - in that situation VC would be useful if higher ISO isn't an option and you don't have a tripod with you. Can't comment on the Sigma as I haven't used it, but reviews seem to be good.
 
DaveKing said:
Another lens you should consider is the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DC Macro. It focuses faster and closer than the Tamron, however the extra 1mm at the wide end does make a big difference.
Click to expand...

not sure I would agree with this, both from personal use and reviews, I wouldn't say the Sigma 18-50 is any better than the Tamron 17-50 AF-wise, and perhaps even slightly weaker.

Two reviews from the-digital-picture.com, which reflect the same way I viewed the AF performance.

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens' AF is rather fast, but the high pitch buzz made by the focus motor is deceptive - making the lens sound slower. I found AF accuracy to be quite good with relatively few missed shots (that were not my fault at least). This is an internal-focusing lens - It does not change length during focusing and the front element does not rotate.
Click to expand...

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Lens' AF sound is relatively quiet but not silent like an HSM or USM lens. AF speed is on the slow side of average. AF accuracy was also on the low side of average. When shooting the very well-lit ideal focus point on ISO 12233 chart tests using AF, every other image was completely out of focus at 18mm f/2.8 and AF was inconsistent at 24mm. In real world use, I missed a noticeably higher number of shots than I should have. AF performance was especially poor in low light (where focus hunting is frequent). Results were also poor in AI Servo mode.
Click to expand...
 
Think i would stick with the Tamron. Prob try and get one 2nd hand
 
Dave1 said:
not sure I would agree with this, both from personal use and reviews, I wouldn't say the Sigma 18-50 is any better than the Tamron 17-50 AF-wise, and perhaps even slightly weaker.

Two reviews from the-digital-picture.com, which reflect the same way I viewed the AF performance.
Click to expand...

Not sure I like the reviews of the-digital-picture, all lens will hunt to some level in low light. I would like to see a more scientific test with lux levels shown at the point of hunting. In the real world I have not seen much of a difference between using my friends Canon 17-55 and my Sigma in the terms of hunting, and the Canon has USM.


Edit: To expand on the statement above about the Sigma, if the light is getting low enough that you can't focus it's more than likely you are getting to low enough light that you shouldn't be hand holding and should be using a tripod due to shutter speed. Therefore whether it hunts or not on a static object is a moot point, as if you have already set up a tripod spending 10s on manually focusing won't matter!
 
Last edited:
DaveKing said:
Edit: To expand on the statement above about the Sigma, if the light is getting low enough that you can't focus it's more than likely you are getting to low enough light that you shouldn't be hand holding
Click to expand...

I would disagree, I found the Sigma to be uncertain at lowish levels indoors, from memory I seem to recall around 1/30 f2.8 ISO 1600 and the Sigma would buzz back and forth before sometimes getting AF lock, the Tamron was able to get AF lock with more consistency at this level.
 
intel86 said:
I only have a 50mm Nifty and now feel limited by it. Nice lens though and i do love it.

I have been toying with getting maybe a Tamron 17-50. Should i keep the 50mm or then sell it to help finance the Tamron?

I like to shoot landscapes as well as protraits of my family and feel the 50mm is limiting in what i can do with it.

Is buying a good Tamron a bit of a lottery as to if one gets a good one or not?
Click to expand...

IMO keep the 50mm prime and buy another Canon lens than a third party lens;)

Third-party lenses can be better, or worse, than original manufacturer lenses. For cautious photographers, original manufacturer lenses are the safe choice.
 
Dave1 said:
I would disagree, I found the Sigma to be uncertain at lowish levels indoors, from memory I seem to recall around 1/30 f2.8 ISO 1600 and the Sigma would buzz back and forth before sometimes getting AF lock, the Tamron was able to get AF lock with more consistency at this level.
Click to expand...

I just saw this.

At 1/30 F2.8 ISO1600 you would more than likely be at 18mm to get a blur free shot handheld. 99% of my shots at 18mm will be at an aperture of more than f5.6 as it will be a landscape shot. I appreciate that there will be some copy variation but with my lens I have never had a real problem with the focusing in low light
 
Tamron for me, I used a friends briefly and found it an excellent bit of kit. Was the latest version if that makes any difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top