i read from a forum in photo.net that you use a 17-50 tamron, and got linked to your this site! i’ve actually been using a d90 and the 18-105mm kit lens for a few months now, and have been pondering on selling off the kit lens to switch to the tamron 17-50 f2.8. having looked at your photos, i’d just like to ask your opinion on this lens, and if i’ll miss the 50-105mm on my kit lens if i made the switch?
What I like about it is the wide f/2.8 aperture, which gives you good low light capability. But much more importantly for me, is that the large aperture gives me the ability to creatively narrow the depth of field for throwing backgrounds out of focus. That’s probably the biggest difference you’ll see over the kit lens.
Now, whether 50mm is enough reach for you, especially coming from a lens that tops at 105mm, that’s a personal decision only you can answer. For me, as someone who likes to get close to what I’m shooting, anything longer than 50mm on a crop-body camera feels like a telephoto.
Another lens in that range to consider is Canon’s 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It’s a better lens and has image stabilization which is great for shooting static subjects at lower shutter speeds. But….. It costs more than twice as much, is bigger, and weighs more.
The Tamron 17-50 feels just right on my canon rebel XSi/450D – and I like the photos I get from it.
Brad,
With respect to “malfurionstormrage” and the enquiry about lenses, your photograph, “Decked” deserves the attention!
Whatever the glass attached to your camera, you’ve captured a poignant scene. What happened before, and after?
I’ve bookmarked this site and “Caliber”. I see that you are on Flickr too. I look forward to seeing more of what you see through whatever lens.
Jim
3 Responses to “Decked”
By malfurionstormrage on Sep 29, 2009
hey brad,
i read from a forum in photo.net that you use a 17-50 tamron, and got linked to your this site! i’ve actually been using a d90 and the 18-105mm kit lens for a few months now, and have been pondering on selling off the kit lens to switch to the tamron 17-50 f2.8. having looked at your photos, i’d just like to ask your opinion on this lens, and if i’ll miss the 50-105mm on my kit lens if i made the switch?
thanks for your opinion
mal
By Brad on Sep 29, 2009
Hey mal…
It’s a pretty good lens at a decent price…
What I like about it is the wide f/2.8 aperture, which gives you good low light capability. But much more importantly for me, is that the large aperture gives me the ability to creatively narrow the depth of field for throwing backgrounds out of focus. That’s probably the biggest difference you’ll see over the kit lens.
Now, whether 50mm is enough reach for you, especially coming from a lens that tops at 105mm, that’s a personal decision only you can answer. For me, as someone who likes to get close to what I’m shooting, anything longer than 50mm on a crop-body camera feels like a telephoto.
Another lens in that range to consider is Canon’s 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It’s a better lens and has image stabilization which is great for shooting static subjects at lower shutter speeds. But….. It costs more than twice as much, is bigger, and weighs more.
The Tamron 17-50 feels just right on my canon rebel XSi/450D – and I like the photos I get from it.
Hope this helps!
By Jim Clarke on Nov 10, 2009
Brad,
With respect to “malfurionstormrage” and the enquiry about lenses, your photograph, “Decked” deserves the attention!
Whatever the glass attached to your camera, you’ve captured a poignant scene. What happened before, and after?
I’ve bookmarked this site and “Caliber”. I see that you are on Flickr too. I look forward to seeing more of what you see through whatever lens.
Jim