Need help to choose between 2 walkaround lens

Fatmonk · 03-23-2013, 02:55 AM

Im looking to buy a tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. But im hearing alot of good things about the tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I just need an everyday walkaround lens. Please your advice is needed. Thanks and have a great weekend.

Patajac · 03-23-2013, 03:23 AM

17 is really useful when you want to go wide, 50-75 range not so important IMO

Anvh · 03-23-2013, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by Patajac

17 is really useful when you want to go wide, 50-75 range not so important IMO

Greatly depends on your shooting style though.

If you're more into scapes then surely wider lenses are more used but if you focus more on the details the slightly longer lenses would be better.

TenZ.NL · 03-23-2013, 04:16 AM

Depends on your shootingstyle, for travel/holyday/work walkaround I use a sigma 17-70. A decent (not stellar) performer which FL can handle 90% in an unknown situation.
I also have the DA*16-50, which has better IQ but sometimes I miss the 50-70mm range (but that`s just me, I like tele)

rockmaster1964 · 03-23-2013, 05:18 AM

I like having the longer reach, so I would choose the 28-75mm. But that is my style of shooting everyone is different.

normhead · 03-23-2013, 06:08 AM

To me, an everyday walk around lens would be the Pentax 18-135. Unless you're walking around indoors a lot, F2.8 just isn't necessary , but the extra range sure is nice. Even when walking around with a 2.8 I don't find myself using F 2.8 a lot. It does enable better focussing with more light. But out doors, that's not often an issue.

SpecialK · 03-23-2013, 07:05 AM

17-50 is not long enough, 28-75 is not wide enough for a catch-as-catch-can single-lens, i.e., 'walk-around" option :-( But between the two I would go with the 17-50 because I prefer wide to long. I bought a used Sigma 17-70 for my WA, sacrificing a bit of IQ for the flexibility.

DaveHolmes · 03-23-2013, 08:14 AM

I sold the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 as it was just too big for a walkaround for my taste, preferring to carry the FA35 attached and one or two (read 3 or 4...) other primes in the bag... It's a great lens, don't get me wrong but a 49mm filter thread is much less intimidating to most people and I tend to get better shots partly (I believe) because of this using my FA-primes than I did with the 17-50...

Fatmonk · 03-23-2013, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Patajac

17 is really useful when you want to go wide, 50-75 range not so important IMO

thank you patajac. im really eyeing on this lens for a long time. thanks again.

Fatmonk · 03-23-2013, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

Greatly depends on your shooting style though.

If you're more into scapes then surely wider lenses are more used but if you focus more on the details the slightly longer lenses would be better.

thanks anvh im gonna test both lens today.

Fatmonk · 03-23-2013, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by TenZ.NL

Depends on your shootingstyle, for travel/holyday/work walkaround I use a sigma 17-70. A decent (not stellar) performer which FL can handle 90% in an unknown situation.
I also have the DA*16-50, which has better IQ but sometimes I miss the 50-70mm range (but that`s just me, I like tele)

thanks for the opinion TenZ.NL. on my canon gear i got like 3 tele lenses. i really like tele lens.

Fatmonk · 03-23-2013, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by rockmaster1964

I like having the longer reach, so I would choose the 28-75mm. But that is my style of shooting everyone is different.

i agree rockmaster1964 thanks.

Fatmonk · 03-23-2013, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by normhead

To me, an everyday walk around lens would be the Pentax 18-135. Unless you're walking around indoors a lot, F2.8 just isn't necessary , but the extra range sure is nice. Even when walking around with a 2.8 I don't find myself using F 2.8 a lot. It does enable better focussing with more light. But out doors, that's not often an issue.

it is true normhead. majority of my walkaround lens would be outdoor. how do you like your 18-135?

Fatmonk · 03-23-2013, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

17-50 is not long enough, 28-75 is not wide enough for a catch-as-catch-can single-lens, i.e., 'walk-around" option :-( But between the two I would go with the 17-50 because I prefer wide to long. I bought a used Sigma 17-70 for my WA, sacrificing a bit of IQ for the flexibility.

thank you Specialk the sigma 17-70 looks really amazing. i look at some pics at pixel peepers and i really like it.

Fatmonk · 03-23-2013, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by DaveHolmes

I sold the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 as it was just too big for a walkaround for my taste, preferring to carry the FA35 attached and one or two (read 3 or 4...) other primes in the bag... It's a great lens, don't get me wrong but a 49mm filter thread is much less intimidating to most people and I tend to get better shots partly (I believe) because of this using my FA-primes than I did with the 17-50...

thanks DaveHolmes, i got a pentax 35mm f/2.4 that comes with my k5. when i purchase it. but that the only lens i got so far for pentax. im just starting my addiction to pentax

coming from canon this is whole different world for me. thanks again.

03-23-2013, 02:55 AM	#1
Fatmonk Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 38	Need help to choose between 2 walkaround lens Im looking to buy a tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. But im hearing alot of good things about the tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I just need an everyday walkaround lens. Please your advice is needed. Thanks and have a great weekend.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Need help to choose the right lens.. complete novice.	NikNak1980	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	17	02-11-2013 11:52 AM
If you had to choose 2 lenses........help needed.	Skipper74	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	15	01-11-2013 07:54 AM
Please help to choose between two lenses	haris	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	05-05-2010 03:21 AM
Which one to choose... need help	okita	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	03-18-2010 12:58 AM
need help to choose a tele-zoom... Thanks	Palu Guimaraes	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	04-24-2007 04:06 PM

03-23-2013, 03:23 AM	#2
Patajac Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 241	17 is really useful when you want to go wide, 50-75 range not so important IMO

03-23-2013, 04:16 AM	#3
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by Patajac 17 is really useful when you want to go wide, 50-75 range not so important IMO Greatly depends on your shooting style though. If you're more into scapes then surely wider lenses are more used but if you focus more on the details the slightly longer lenses would be better.

03-23-2013, 04:16 AM	#4
TenZ.NL Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Below sealevel Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,100	Depends on your shootingstyle, for travel/holyday/work walkaround I use a sigma 17-70. A decent (not stellar) performer which FL can handle 90% in an unknown situation. I also have the DA*16-50, which has better IQ but sometimes I miss the 50-70mm range (but that`s just me, I like tele)

03-23-2013, 05:18 AM	#5
rockmaster1964 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Frisco Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 382	I like having the longer reach, so I would choose the 28-75mm. But that is my style of shooting everyone is different.

03-23-2013, 06:08 AM	#6
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	To me, an everyday walk around lens would be the Pentax 18-135. Unless you're walking around indoors a lot, F2.8 just isn't necessary , but the extra range sure is nice. Even when walking around with a 2.8 I don't find myself using F 2.8 a lot. It does enable better focussing with more light. But out doors, that's not often an issue.

03-23-2013, 07:05 AM	#7
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	17-50 is not long enough, 28-75 is not wide enough for a catch-as-catch-can single-lens, i.e., 'walk-around" option :-( But between the two I would go with the 17-50 because I prefer wide to long. I bought a used Sigma 17-70 for my WA, sacrificing a bit of IQ for the flexibility.

03-23-2013, 08:14 AM	#8
DaveHolmes Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 1,501	I sold the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 as it was just too big for a walkaround for my taste, preferring to carry the FA35 attached and one or two (read 3 or 4...) other primes in the bag... It's a great lens, don't get me wrong but a 49mm filter thread is much less intimidating to most people and I tend to get better shots partly (I believe) because of this using my FA-primes than I did with the 17-50...

03-23-2013, 01:11 PM	#9
Fatmonk Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by Patajac 17 is really useful when you want to go wide, 50-75 range not so important IMO thank you patajac. im really eyeing on this lens for a long time. thanks again.

03-23-2013, 01:12 PM	#10
Fatmonk Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by Anvh Greatly depends on your shooting style though. If you're more into scapes then surely wider lenses are more used but if you focus more on the details the slightly longer lenses would be better. thanks anvh im gonna test both lens today.

03-23-2013, 01:15 PM	#11
Fatmonk Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by TenZ.NL Depends on your shootingstyle, for travel/holyday/work walkaround I use a sigma 17-70. A decent (not stellar) performer which FL can handle 90% in an unknown situation. I also have the DA*16-50, which has better IQ but sometimes I miss the 50-70mm range (but that`s just me, I like tele) thanks for the opinion TenZ.NL. on my canon gear i got like 3 tele lenses. i really like tele lens.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-23-2013, 01:16 PM	#12
Fatmonk Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by rockmaster1964 I like having the longer reach, so I would choose the 28-75mm. But that is my style of shooting everyone is different. i agree rockmaster1964 thanks.

03-23-2013, 01:17 PM	#13
Fatmonk Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead To me, an everyday walk around lens would be the Pentax 18-135. Unless you're walking around indoors a lot, F2.8 just isn't necessary , but the extra range sure is nice. Even when walking around with a 2.8 I don't find myself using F 2.8 a lot. It does enable better focussing with more light. But out doors, that's not often an issue. it is true normhead. majority of my walkaround lens would be outdoor. how do you like your 18-135?

03-23-2013, 01:19 PM	#14
Fatmonk Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by SpecialK 17-50 is not long enough, 28-75 is not wide enough for a catch-as-catch-can single-lens, i.e., 'walk-around" option :-( But between the two I would go with the 17-50 because I prefer wide to long. I bought a used Sigma 17-70 for my WA, sacrificing a bit of IQ for the flexibility. thank you Specialk the sigma 17-70 looks really amazing. i look at some pics at pixel peepers and i really like it.

03-23-2013, 01:22 PM	#15
Fatmonk Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 38 Original Poster	Originally posted by DaveHolmes I sold the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 as it was just too big for a walkaround for my taste, preferring to carry the FA35 attached and one or two (read 3 or 4...) other primes in the bag... It's a great lens, don't get me wrong but a 49mm filter thread is much less intimidating to most people and I tend to get better shots partly (I believe) because of this using my FA-primes than I did with the 17-50... thanks DaveHolmes, i got a pentax 35mm f/2.4 that comes with my k5. when i purchase it. but that the only lens i got so far for pentax. im just starting my addiction to pentax coming from canon this is whole different world for me. thanks again.