Tamron 17-50 and primes?

[hyune_83]

Just ordered a tamron 17-50. Was wondering if I need to get a prime lens also (30mm or 50mm) for low light photography potraits (head and neck) and upper body group pictures of 3-5 people or will the tamron be sufficient. Thanks.

[gryphonslair99]

I own the 17-50 Tamron and love it. It is my day to day walk-around lens. I also own a 50mm f1.4, an 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 macro and the 135 f2. They all see their fair share of use depending on the need. The Tamron will probably work however, if you go with primes you will see a difference in sharpness. It is all going to depend on exactly what you need and want.

[Tee Why]

It may depend more on the available lighting (if you are shooting just with ambient light) and the Depth of field you are looking for.

Generally, with decent light, the Tamron should do.

[DerekI]

Why dont you consider the EF 85f1.8 , since this one is longer then the 50mm end of your Tamron.

the Tamron is definitely sharper then the silly Nifty Fifty, but F1.4 or 85mm primes are all slightly sharper then the Tamron at 50mm.

that said , in my opinion after having this lens for a month , I will confirmed it is the best zoom in this focal length along with the Sigma EX macro.

[DerekI]

Oh or the 60mm macro is a great lens .

[Bushplane Ken]

I know where you are coming from "hyune_83". I feel I have a decent base of lenses to work with but occasionally there are times when you know that a faster or longer or wider lens would just allow you do something that you just can't quite pull off.

I was at a "photography and imaging" show (and sale) on Saturday. One of the lenses that I wanted to look at was the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I was quite impressed with the look and feel of the lens. I know that it is not a built like a Canon L series lens but it seems very usable.

I was also looking at a Sigma 30 mm f/1.4. It seems to be a very well made, solid lens. I can't speak to the images that these lenses produce as I was only able to handle them in a crowed hall. I had no opportunity to actually take pictures with them.

My two cents for what it is worth is that you might want to consider sticking with the Tamron 17-50 for a while and try to get a sense of when and how you are being limited by the lens. Once you get a handle on that, then it may be time to look for the next lens.

Ken

[hyune_83]

--- Derek

Well, I've heard raving reviews about the 85 1.8, but I have the nifty and find it even too long for indoor shots of more than 1 person. I shoot a lot of pictures indoor in low light, but I guess I'll have to try to tamron and see if it is sufficient. It's ups'ed for tomorrow....

[hyune_83]

Also, I'm not too worried with sharpness on the tamron. I find it sufficient and I am not a pixel-peeper. The thing that bothers me is the 2.8 aperature and the availability of light & depth of field...

[LightRules]

The 1750 is a good lens; not optically in the same class as the 30f1.4, but good for the "APS-C standard zoom" category.