Should I sell my nifty fifty to help fund tamron 17 50 f2.8?

[p1tse]

I'm wanting a tamron 17 50 f2.8 as my main lens all in one 18 200 is awesome for general walk about to cover a large focal range but want something a bit better for around the house inside and out as most pics are of my toddler.

Thinking of selling my nifty fifty to fund it but this is probably the best lens bangs for bucks.

 

[Bl4ckGryph0n]

Considering how good value for money the fifty is, I'd save up a little bit longer and just keep it. I've got both and use both...

 

[twist]

Nifty is good value and if you can rather wait a month or two till you can make up the extra £50 to get the 17-50 do that then decide wether to keep the prime. If you cant ever make up the £50 then Id personally get the Tamron, I had a fifty and a 17-50, sold the 50 as the 17-50 was very sharp at 2.8 and far more convenient.

 

[BubbleDouble]

Considering how good value for money the fifty is, I'd save up a little bit longer and just keep it. I've got both and use both...

+1

Darren

 

[godsakes]

If you like shooting at f2 or wider for the thin dof keep the 50mm otherwise sell it to fund the tamron, you can always pick up another at a later date if you miss it

 

[eduk]

I'm wanting a tamron 17 50 f2.8 as my main lens all in one 18 200 is awesome for general walk about to cover a large focal range but want something a bit better for around the house inside and out as most pics are of my toddler.

Thinking of selling my nifty fifty to fund it but this is probably the best lens bangs for bucks.

Inside the house you will miss the aperture.

 

[p1tse]

Think I've read there's the vibration control and non vc. Does the vc have the motor in them regardless?

Will be mounting in d90 and with low budget not to bothered which version although read the non vc focuses a little bit quicker.

What's the lowest do these go for?

 

[twist]

Non vc is sharper. 180 Ish used.

 

[KyleS1]

How funny, I've been thinking about doing the exact same thing lately. It's been annoying having to be the other side of the room to get decent shots of my newborn. The Tamron was the first lens that sprung to mind when I thought about changing it. I have the 18-135 canon lens, which is great outdoors, but struggles a bit more indoors. I suppose I could sell both...
I do love the nifty though.

 

[Jammyb]

Non vc is sharper. 180 Ish used.

While it's sharper mounted on a tripod taking photos of ISO charts I do wonder if the average tog on an average days shooting wouldn't get more sharp shots with the VC than without.

Certainly if you're at all interested in video the VC would be better.

 

[Bl4ckGryph0n]

I had both and the non VC is most definitely much better. I tried two VC models on two different bodies and they were both just well out both front and back focussing.

Non VC happy days

 

[twist]

While it's sharper mounted on a tripod taking photos of ISO charts I do wonder if the average tog on an average days shooting wouldn't get more sharp shots with the VC than without.

Certainly if you're at all interested in video the VC would be better.

In my experience and a few others its sharper even in every day use, well if you know how to use your camera like it should be used it is (not at F11 in the dark at ISO 100). But I understand your point about a beginner shooter.

 

[ziplex]

For what the 50mm is worth it's better to keep it, it's such a great lens in time you'll miss it.

 

[dave_bass5]

I practically stopped using my 50mm when i got my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, but i always think its nice to keep a fast prime, just in case. Considering its not worth much i would just hang on to it unless you really need to fund the new lens ASAP.
Then again i found getting an external flash was the best thing i ever did for shooting my little ones indoors.

 

[KyleS1]

That is what I have been thinking about the 50mm too. It's a great lens and not worth a great deal, so will probably keep it. With the flash as well (430EXII) its a great combo, but the focal length is annoying, hence looking at the Tamron.

 

[dave_bass5]

My 17-50 and 420EX were a fantastic combo for around the house. I found i never really needed to zoom past 50mm anyway but 17mm was great and made it a lot easier to capture them when playing on the floor etc.

 

[KyleS1]

That is what I am after. Wide angle would be great but my 18-135 is f3.5 at it's widest.

I try to photograph with natural light as much as I can, which is where the nifty rules.

Not sure I can justify the lens though having just bought myself a iphone 4s and new tv.

 

[dave_bass5]

In my old, small flat having 17mm really helped, and i also loved shooting at 50mm f/2.8. The Tamron was almost as sharp as my Canon 17-55IS but as i too used to try and use available light i found having IS to be a good idea.
I recently got a 15-85IS and that extra 2mm at the wide end is quite a difference.

 

[Jammyb]

I'm planning to swap my Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 OS HSM for the Sigma 17-50 EX 2.8 OS HSM in the near future I think.

I've like the 17-70mm a lot, but tempted by the constant aperture. At 70mm I end up stopping down to f4.5 or 5.6 for extra sharpness as well. Couldn't go back to slow AF and no OS/IS/VC. The Sigma 17-50 is sharper than the Canon 17-55mm at certain focal ranges, better in some areas, weaker in other. But crucially a LOT cheaper.

Would never sell the 50mm 1.8 though, it's my go to 'party lens' as it's small + light and not expensive if it get's damaged. Forces me to step back for flattering portraits.

 

[dave_bass5]

With quite a few "horror" stories surrounding the Tamron 17-50 VC i'm seriously considering getting the Sigma version early next year.
Since selling my Canon 17-55IS (to fund the 15-85IS) i do miss having the constant f/2.8, and i also find im at f/5.6 quite a bit with my 15-85IS and i feel thats a bit too slow for this time of the year. I Cant afford another Canon, nor do i really want something that big so the Sigma fits the bill nicely.
Although i have a 50mm f/1.4 now i really want to get another 35f/2 as a "party lens", thats another lens i regret selling this year :-(

 

[KyleS1]

I would like the 35 f2 as well. I think I would use it a lot. It's just quite a jump from the price of the nifty.

I hear just as many bad things about sigma as I do about Tamron. It's always about sigmas being soft.

 

[twist]

With quite a few "horror" stories surrounding the Tamron 17-50 VC i'm seriously considering getting the Sigma version early next year.
Since selling my Canon 17-55IS (to fund the 15-85IS) i do miss having the constant f/2.8, and i also find im at f/5.6 quite a bit with my 15-85IS and i feel thats a bit too slow for this time of the year. I Cant afford another Canon, nor do i really want something that big so the Sigma fits the bill nicely.
Although i have a 50mm f/1.4 now i really want to get another 35f/2 as a "party lens", thats another lens i regret selling this year :-(

Dave Ive had 3 of these (non VC) but maybe I was just lucky, a lot of other people have also had no issues with the Tamron, think the VC has a couple BF FF issues but builds pretty good.

35mm is better on crop. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 is superb. Sigmas are known to have awful FF BF issues but when buying new its not so much an issue as you can test or send to Sigma for calibration.

 

[dave_bass5]

I stupidly sold mine for £100 this year. I hadn't used it for a while so figured i could do with the money. As soon as i got rid of my 17-55 i started to use my primes again and realised my mistake. I love the 50mm but 35mm is nicer for me. The 85mm never gets used now.
I was quite surprised at how expensive they are now.

I haven't read much about the Sigma but i did try one in a camera shop and felt it was up to the job. Im sure they all have good and bad copies.

 

[dave_bass5]

Dave Ive had 3 of these (non VC) but maybe I was just lucky, a lot of other people have also had no issues with the Tamron, think the VC has a couple BF FF issues but builds pretty good.

I loved mine, i also had the 28-75 f/2.8 and that too was super sharp. Its the FF BF stories that put me off getting the VC but i do know i would need something thats stabilised. I will look in to both when the time comes.

35mm is better on crop. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 is superb. Sigma's are known to have awful FF BF issues but when buying new its not so much an issue as you can test or send to Sigma for calibration.

Getting 2 bad copies of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is what prompted me to get the 35F2. The first was obviously off, right from the first shot. I had that changed and the second seemed great. I took 100's of great shots with it indoors but when i came to use it as a walk around lens, outdoors, i kept finding i was getting miss focused shots, mainly on medium distance, f/5.6-8 shots. I must have had ti for about 6-9months and then gave up. Its a nicer lens than the 35F2 but l loved how small the 35 was. On a Canon 350D i could fit the camera and lens in to a jacket pocket.

When i got my 30D i brought another Sigma but that was just overall too soft, took it back and got the 50mm f/1.4.

I would really love to try the 30mm f/1.4 again but probably wont buy new. ill track one down that has a proven track record (and save money of course).

 

[Jammyb]

It really shouldn't have to be like that you know....

Canon are rumoured to be revising a lot of their older lenses next year. Hopefully we'll see some nice new primes that don't cost a fortune. Not holding my breath though.