Originally posted by krp I've saved up some money for a new lens, about $350. To get a better deal I'll buy a used lens. There are 3 kinds of lenses I want, but I can only afford one. A fast standard zoom, An ultra-wide zoom, and a f/fa 50mm f1.4/1.7.
Out of those 3, I'm leaning towards a fast standard zoom like the Tamron 17-50. But I'm not sure if I should save up a little more for an ultra-wide zoom. The Tamron 10-24 is a little cheaper, but the image quality looks pretty bad wide compared to the Sigma 10-20, at least according to the tests on slrgear. I like taking pictures of landscapes and also pictures of the stars, so iq wide open is important for that. At first I thought an ultra wide zoom would be the first lens I saved up for, but I read it makes it so much harder to get a good composition. It's hard for me to know since I've never used one. If I get the Tamron 17-50 then I'll have a good sharp lens and I can sell my kit lens, but I just can't decide.
Kevin
Hi Kevin and welcome to the difficult world of picking the right lens. The key things you say are "
I'm leaning towards a fast standard zoom," & "
I like taking pictures of landscapes and also pictures of the stars, so iq wide open is important for that." I own the Tamron 17-50, the Tamron 28-75, the Sigma 10-20, and other Tamron zooms.
If you really need a landscape lens which is fast and excellent wide open, the 17-50mm f 2.8 is great. I have taken over 15 thousand shots with mine and love the lens now, much more than when I first got it. However, be sure you really need the constant 2.8 aperture, before you shell out the extra bucks it costs. I also shoot with another Tamron zoom which is excellent, the SP Tamron 24-135 f3.5-5.6. I love the advantage it enjoys in focal range over my 17-50, when I do not need 17-23 of course. But I also love the fact that the IQ is awesome on the 24-135 and the lens can currently be bought for $299 brand new because it was discontinued. The 17-50 is going to cost you a good deal more. Personally, I find 24mm about the best range for landscaping, though of course it can be done at mostly any range. I usually do not use my Sigma 10-20mm for landscapes; it really is too wide for most landscape applications.
If your budget is $350, then you are probably looking at a used 17-50. Also, the 17-50 is not Full Frame, but the 28-75 & 24-135 are. It would be hard for you to go wrong, no matter which one you choose. If you are going to shoot star trails, you really need really long shutter speeds, not large apertures--consider this. Below is a shot with the Tamron 17-50, & one with the 24-135--just a peak into the IQ world of these most excellent Tamron zooms.
Oh, and best of luck to you!
JT
Last edited by Jewelltrail; 01-30-2011 at 07:05 PM.