17-50 2.8 Vs a couple of primes?

Thecageyone

I have the tammy 17-50mm f/2.8, and though I find it a neat lens, and very capable for most purposes, I find it nowhere near as sharp as primes in low light.

I shot a gig last night, and was at f/2.8 all the way, but even at ISO 1600 the lens was struggling a little with the crappy lighting. I switched to my 85mm 1.8D for a few closer in shots and the results surprised me a lot! The shots from the 85 were so much cleaner, even at the same settings [could be a lot to do with the fact a prime at 2.8 is stopped down, so better again]

I really wish I'd had a 35mm 1.8 on me instead of the tamron zoom. BUT ... on the other hand, when I'm out and about and spot a nice bit of landscape or general scene I'd like to get as much of in one image, the 17mm of the tamron is great.

I can't afford to have both.

35mm on a DX body, any good for landscape?indoor wider shooting? or should I look towards a 24mm? [those are 2.8 not 1.8 from what I know?]

Anyone use only primes?

pete4130

Lots of info in this thread...

here

Thecageyone

Not the same issue. I've had primes. I have a prime. I already have a fast wide lens. This is a very straight forward question. Primes or keep the zoom?

pete4130

Well here's a fast 24mm prime for DX and FX and I know you love a bit of the aul'd Ken Rockwell from previous posts

Thecageyone

Ha good ol' Ken. 24 would do the job buts 2.8. Why don't they make them faster?

pete4130

It's a 1.4

DaireQuinlan

pete4130 wrote: »

It's a 1.4

It's a gorgeous lens. If nothing else it should knock the resale value for the 28mm f/1.4 on it's ass. OTOH it's also a massive heavy monster of a lens. And a G to boot. If I want small and light I've got the 24mm ais f/2.8, if I want a little more versatility I've got the 20-35 f/2.8. Bit unweildy though as well. 20mm through the 100% viewfinder of my F4 has to be seen to be beleived though :-)

Thecageyone

pete4130 wrote: »

It's a 1.4

See how much I rate KR? I didn't even check the link :P


Too pricey for me. I'm looking for something in or around the value of the Tamron. I don't know, I did a shoot with the tamron today and using flash, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between shots from it and a prime. It's only in low light situations I find it limited. Maybe I'll just stick with it for now.

Squidgy Black

Never tried it, but the sigma version's quite cheap http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/217762-USA/Sigma_440306_W_A_28mm_f_1_8_EX.html

Maybe if you found a store over here that stocked them to try them first?

Thecageyone

That doesn't look too bad, nice close focusing capabilities too. I'll have a look around at some reviews, cheers.

pete4130

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

20mm through the 100% viewfinder of my F4 has to be seen to be beleived though :-)

Nikon F4. Now thats real camera. I keep pandering to get one for the past 12 years since using one way back then. the G lenses aren't fully compatable IFIRC? They wont work in Aperture mode or P mode, am I right?

DaireQuinlan

pete4130 wrote: »

Nikon F4. Now thats real camera. I keep pandering to get one for the past 12 years since using one way back then. the G lenses aren't fully compatable IFIRC? They wont work in Aperture mode or P mode, am I right?

Yeah it's a doozy. I'd probably end up using my F100 more than my F4 for a couple of reasons, but the F4 is probably my favourite Nikon body. Everything is dials and switches, no sign of any crummy LCDs until you look through the finder, so even switched off you can instantly tell what the camera is doing. Don't have any G lenses myself, but apparently it does P and Shutter priority just fine, just won't do manual or aperture priority as there's no way of setting the aperture on the body. Also won't activate VR. What it WILL do is focus perfectly well with AFS lenses, despite being released long before Nikon actually HAD any AFS lenses. They re-used the contacts from their early prototype AF lenses for the F3 for the AFS contacts, and the F4 maintained them from the F3 for (ironically) backward compatibility.

Get yourself an F4 and an MB-20 (the smaller battery pack) and pop 4 lithiums into it and you'll be set for about a year or more. I swap out my batteries after that long but they're still probably good to go for a while longer. I got a split screen as well because I've got a fair few AIS primes so it's useful, but the electronic AF helper seems to be pretty spot on 99% of the time anyway so it's probably not completely neccessary.

dinneenp

Hey,
Doesn't really answer your question but I have the Tammy 17-50 f2.8 and am buying a Sigma 30mm f1.4 too.
My reason- for low light (as you stated) and also blurred background (I won't say for bokeh, that spawned a multipage debate about what is bokeh).

I said before that I wasn't that happy with the Tammy but after thinking about it more and using it a bit more I suppose I am/should be happy with it as I often use it at different focal lengths at f2.8. So that implies that it's 'doing it's job'.

I suppose I was saying that I wasn't happy with it what I probably mean was it's not a prime so I shouldn't have been expecting the same results from it....

I'm getting the prime from the USA second hand so it's costing me €300 instead of about €400. Still not cheap for me but not too bad.

Next I just want a 70-200mm f2.8 and then I'd be able to get something besides lenses for birthdays, Christmas....(who am I kiding, I'd probably go for a macro lens next, then probably look at wide angle etc.)

Cheers,
Pa.

Borderfox

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/wide-angle-prime-lenses

At a lot of indoor events gigs/birthdays/weddings/churches a zoom even at f2.8 is going to struggle, you can stick a flash on (not a most gigs etc) or crank up the iso. Any of the primes above will give you more options even with landscapes (should be technically sharper than the Tamron) Indoors for me in its simplest a prime will at least half my iso compared to any zoom I have

Thecageyone

The real pain is budget as ever. When using flash I go for the tamron 90% of the time. But it did struggle a little at the gig other night, had to bump the iso way up. A 24 and 50 would fill the gaps. I hate getting rid of a nice lens though. Decisions . . .

Borderfox

tbh theres nothing wrong with bumping the iso up, I shot a horse show yesterday that started at iso 1/640th f2 iso 1600 and went up to 1/500th f1.4 iso 3200 by the end of the day, during the day the light improved and I could just about use the 70-200 but mostly the 85mm. Indoor light will always be crap, something like a 24mm f1.8 will solve a lot of problems but only in about 10% of you usage for the other 90% you would prefer the 17-50

For lens reviews I like here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/

Thecageyone

The d90 is ok with a little push. But never as clean at 1600 - 3200 as a d3/5D mk II. In very black surroundings the noise is of the biting, burned in kind, not so smooth.

Nice review on there of the tampon. Very close to the canon 18-55 2.8 which is great compliment.

pete4130

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

F100 more than my F4 for a couple of reasons

I've got an F100 since about 2003 and love it. Probably one of the best cameras I've held in my hand ever. I still long for an F4. I think I used the F4e or F4s. Yes, totally analogue controls, robust and weighs a ton. It's on my list, as is an F5. No interest in an F6 really, other than to have one just to have one.

It's an amazing sensation feeling the motor pull through the roll to the next frame. Never ceases to send a shudder through my body.

Anyway, really sorry for being way off topic!

pete4130

Thecageyone wrote: »

The d90 is ok with a little push. But never as clean at 1600 - 3200 as a d3/5D mk II. In very black surroundings the noise is of the biting, burned in kind, not so smooth.

Nice review on there of the tampon. Very close to the canon 18-55 2.8 which is great compliment.

If its dark surroundings, try under exposing by about 1 stop so the metering doesn't try to bring up the shadows. Let them be dark and concentrate on whats lit properly. The same goes for gig shoots too.

Thecageyone

Might have hit nail on head there, exp comp is something I often get wrong. I think io had actually set it to over expose thinking it would lift the darks.

Just realised my phone considers the lens a tampon