Tamron 17-50 vs Nikon 35/1.8 at f2.8

C

casts_by_fly

Suspended / Banned
Messages
694
Name
Rick
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,

Can anyone who's had both make a comparison for me? I find I shoot my 35 stopped down to 2.0-2.8 most of the time. I would like the Tamron to add some focal length width to my wide apertures. Given my shooting, I think it could work if the Tamron wide open is as sharp as the 35 at 2-2.8. Anyone have both to compare?

Thanks,
Rick
 
Almost certainly the prime, since the Tamron would be shooting wide open compared to the Nikon being stopped down. I can check when I get time.
 
I'd be mightily surprised if the zoom was anywhere near as sharp as the prime. I can't say for sure, as I only have the 35mm, but let's see...
 
I had the sigma 18-50 constant f2.8 macro, which was a very good copy. The 35mm nikkor pooped all over it at f2.8, the 35mm is razor stopped down.
 
I've had both and the 35mm is WAY superior.
 
i've got the 35mm f1.8 AF-S and the lens is dead sharp when stop down to 2.8. Is a prime lens wide open to 1.8 and when they stop down abit, it will be dead dead sharp. My are at least.

I would imagine it will sharper than the tamron, altho the tamron is a sharp lens for a mid range zoom.
 
thanks guys. That's what I suspected was the case. The 35 is an awesome little lens and I love it to bits. I just miss the zoom at times and hoped the tamron might get close. Guess not.

thanks
rick
 
I have both and concur with the above; the 35mm is superior.

However, that is not to say that the 17-50 is poor - even at 2.8 it is acceptable and at f4 is excellent. Both are worth having in your bag if you manage it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top