A&P Would a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 overlap too much?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by cantankerously, Mar 7, 2010.

  1. cantankerously

    cantankerously Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    61,519
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Would it really be worth it to have both lenses?
     
  2. cantankerously

    cantankerously Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    61,519
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    South Carolina
    I already have a 50mm 1.8 - which i would sell for the 35mm. It won't autofocus on my body.
     
  3. MSIGuy

    MSIGuy om nom nom nom!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Two different lenses for two different things.

    That's kinda like asking "hey, is it stupid to own a 70-200 and a 100mm macro?"
     
  4. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

  5. Bloody Sunday

    Bloody Sunday OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    52,487
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    North County
    i have both. but i see what others are saying and agree, but I can also see what you're thinking. i can zoom to 50 and take some great portraits, comparable to the 50 prime. but 1 full stop wider makes a lot of difference, so i wouldn't do many portraits with that zoom. i would just put on the 50
     
  6. Cesium

    Cesium OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    11,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (Opera/9.80 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.2.13918/958; U; en) Presto/2.4.15)

    All the 35 buys you is a little over one stop of light at 35mm. Not sure if that's even worth it.
     
  7. MSIGuy

    MSIGuy om nom nom nom!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    :rofl:
     
  8. quid

    quid I Piss Excellence OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    50,352
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    california
    i have both of those :naughty:

    if you shoot at 35mm A LOT then the prime will be worth it imo... i have the sigma 18-50, and my next lens will be a 35mm prime.
     
  9. Cesium

    Cesium OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    11,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (Opera/9.80 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.2.13918/958; U; en) Presto/2.4.15)

    Ok what else do you get? Other than ca?
     
  10. MSIGuy

    MSIGuy om nom nom nom!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, who would think one extra stop of light would be a good thing to have...

    You should go tell all the people who have 70-200 2.8's that they wasted their money, they should have bought f4's. "All you're getting is a pesky little stop of light." :mamoru:
     
  11. EWhytsell

    EWhytsell New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    You also get different DOF capability/looks and since it can go wider you get more shutter speed/ISO possibilities.
     
  12. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    That extra stop, stop and a half, gives you quite a bit more light. But you also get prime sharpness and greater DOF. There is nothing wrong with overlap in lenses...actually, I prefer it.
     
  13. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    The 35 at 1.8 is pretty decent. 2.8 is sharper than Tammy at 2.8
     
  14. Cesium

    Cesium OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    11,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (Opera/9.80 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.2.13918/958; U; en) Presto/2.4.15)

    The 70-200 range is a whole different animal compared to 35. My answer would have been different.

    Did i hit a nerve or something?
     
  15. Idyfohu

    Idyfohu New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    Just in general, you saying that 1 stop of light is insignificant is kinda weird, but that's cool.

    I absolutely love my 50mm 1.4 on my FX and is sooo much better IMO than a 50mm on a cropped sensor. I'd definitely say to go for the 35mm, for the quality difference, IQ, compared to your 50mm you currently have, not to mention that no AF really sucks, really bad.
     
  16. Cesium

    Cesium OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    11,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (Opera/9.80 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.2.13918/958; U; en) Presto/2.4.15)

    Where did i say 'in general'? I only took the two lenses in question into consideration.
     
  17. MSIGuy

    MSIGuy om nom nom nom!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not at all... To be honest I don't really care what someone on the internet thinks about some camera equipment.

    I did find it kinda funny/pathetic that you fail to see the difference between a 2.8 zoom and a 1.8 prime, but it's all good! :h5:
     
  18. Cesium

    Cesium OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    11,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (Opera/9.80 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.2.13918/958; U; en) Presto/2.4.15)

    The only thing pathetic is you trying to find an angle to knock my opinion. But it's all good, right?
     
  19. Idyfohu

    Idyfohu New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    Pissy dude? Pretty sure I didn't quote you and say, "In General." Just you saying that, "...a little over one stop of light..." isn't worth it is your own opinion and one I think you're alone on, especially for a brand new $200 lens. Wutev. :wiggle:
     
  20. MSIGuy

    MSIGuy om nom nom nom!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're still wrong... :mamoru:
     
  21. Idyfohu

    Idyfohu New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    :noes:
     
  22. Cesium

    Cesium OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    11,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    :rofl:
     
  23. Idyfohu

    Idyfohu New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    :mamoru: @ you for not realizing I was laughing at you for being a douche for no apparent reason. Oh wait, it's because you're defending only over a stop of light being insignificant and then getting pissed when someone called you out. Har Har Har Har.
     
  24. MSIGuy

    MSIGuy om nom nom nom!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anyway, to the OP. It just really depends on what you're going for. If you're looking for a lens that's optically better, allows you to more finely control your DOF, focuses quicker and quieter, and lets more than a stop more light in, then no, it's not stupid to won both.
     
  25. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    lol at this thread
     

Share This Page