[Another dyemention]

As of now I have a tamron 28-105, a tamron 70-300 and the da 50. Both zooms were less than $70 combined and I bought them just to see how I liked the FL. THE 28-105 is useful but the IQ is not good enough for me to use it more than just snapping some pics. And I do wish it was a tad longer. I never use the 70-300. And the 50 takes nice pics but there's just something about the look of the images that I'm not 100% happy with. It's a little too narrow I think.
So I'm leaning towards the 15 ltd and the 18-135. Also considering the Tammy 17-50 and eventually the 70-200. Or I'll just skip the other zoom and get a 77mm or the 100 macro. Don't think I'd use much past 50 except for portraits or something specific like that.
I like the size of the 15 but the 17-50 would prolly never come off my camera. But going with the 15 and 18-135, I'd have a pretty useful kit for my style a well. Money wise I think either way is comparable. And from reading reviews, I think either direction would give me great results.
What would be the pros and or cons of either of these kits? I think it's a pretty hard decision and I don't have the experience to know what would be better all around.
Also, would the 17-50 be a good alternative to the da 50? I may just sell that lens to help fund my upgrades.

---------- Post added 09-03-14 at 09:08 AM ----------

Also I forgot to mention. I'm not thrilled with the size of the 17-50. Especially if I were to use it for street photography. But at the same time, my up front cost would be considerably less since I wouldn't add another lens until I specifically needed it. Whereas the 15, I would need something to supplement that in tents of FL.

---------- Post added 09-03-14 at 09:13 AM ----------

Or, lol sorry, should I just get the 18-135 and call it good? Add another lens like the 15 or a uwa zoom on later when I want something a bit nicer?
Thanks in advance.
Steve

[VoiceOfReason]

I like and use both my 17-50 and 18-135. If you have a WR body that 18-135 would come in handy in less than idea conditions. I've used mine in drizzle and rain down in Mexico and even got decent night time pics with it.

[TER-OR]

The 18-135 has two advantages - WR and a nice motor. If used right, it's nice. It's also not very big.

If 50mm is too narrow (or "tight as it's often said), then the DA 35mm 2.4 might be a good alternative. A bit wider are some 30 and 28mm lenses but the 35 is less expensive.

I'd wait on a UWA, personally. They're not cheap. I have a DA21mm ltd and like it, and haven't played with any of the others except the Sigma 8-16 which is getting very expensive. The 21mm is tiny, which is also quite nice.

[Another dyemention]

Expensive is not going to work unfortunately. I do have some limits. The 15 ltd is the most I could spend in a lens in the foreseeable future. And it would be a while before I could acquire anything else.
And I've considered the 35 but it would just overlap if I were to get the 17-50 or the 18-135

---------- Post added 09-03-14 at 09:45 AM ----------

And I would only be buying one lens right now anyhow. Either the 15, the 17-50, or the 18-135. Guess the decision is really between those three. However, any of those three directions all have some substantial compromises. Be it DOF, FL, size/ weight, or total costs.

[jatrax]

I would get the 18-135 and play around with it before getting the 15mm. That is a very special lens and I'm sure you would love it, but it is also a specialist lens and I do not use mine everyday. After you have the 18-135 then you will have a better idea of what other focal lengths you might want.

[VoiceOfReason]

Expensive is not going to work unfortunately. I do have some limits. The 15 ltd is the most I could spend in a lens in the foreseeable future. And it would be a while before I could acquire anything else.
And I've considered the 35 but it would just overlap if I were to get the 17-50 or the 18-135

If you don't mind used there is a Tamron 17-50 for $200 in the marketplace here right now. If I didn't have one it would be mighty tempting. I've also seen the DA 18-135 WR in the marketplace for 325 recently, so just over 500 and you'd have both, and I know you'd definitely use both. I do.

[bdery]

Or, lol sorry, should I just get the 18-135 and call it good?

Start there. See which focal lengths you really like and hen get primes to fill those points.

On the other hand, if you already know 50mm is too tight or you, maybe try a 40mm? the XS40mm can be had for a song.

[Tan68]

As of now I have a tamron 28-105, a tamron 70-300 and the da 50. Both zooms were less than $70 combined and I bought them just to see how I liked the FL. THE 28-105 is useful but the IQ is not good enough for me to use it more than just snapping some pics. And I do wish it was a tad longer. I never use the 70-300. And the 50 takes nice pics but there's just something about the look of the images that I'm not 100% happy with. It's a little too narrow I think.
So I'm leaning towards the 15 ltd and the 18-135. Also considering the Tammy 17-50 and eventually the 70-200. Or I'll just skip the other zoom and get a 77mm or the 100 macro. Don't think I'd use much past 50 except for portraits or something specific like that.
I like the size of the 15 but the 17-50 would prolly never come off my camera. But going with the 15 and 18-135, I'd have a pretty useful kit for my style a well. Money wise I think either way is comparable. And from reading reviews, I think either direction would give me great results.
What would be the pros and or cons of either of these kits? I think it's a pretty hard decision and I don't have the experience to know what would be better all around.
Also, would the 17-50 be a good alternative to the da 50? I may just sell that lens to help fund my upgrades.

---------- Post added 09-03-14 at 09:08 AM ----------

Also I forgot to mention. I'm not thrilled with the size of the 17-50. Especially if I were to use it for street photography. But at the same time, my up front cost would be considerably less since I wouldn't add another lens until I specifically needed it. Whereas the 15, I would need something to supplement that in tents of FL.

---------- Post added 09-03-14 at 09:13 AM ----------

Or, lol sorry, should I just get the 18-135 and call it good? Add another lens like the 15 or a uwa zoom on later when I want something a bit nicer?
Thanks in advance.
Steve

I might recommend slowing down a little !

Just mean that you have many things on your mind. I thought the comments about the 50 being tight considering a 77 you might use only for portraits a little conflicting. Not an entire conflict in that 50 and 77 are different. Just in that it may show a little uncertainty. And uncertainty is not too good :^)

If you need to start with a thing, then I guess the 18-135 is good if you are happy with the reviews of the lens. I think it is a really good focal range. Not much to go wrong with there.

I think a 50mm and a 40mm lens are pretty close.
Not the same but not very different and you may not see a benefit in the purchase.

I started with a Tamron 17-50 because I thought it was like getting a bunch of lenses all in one and it is. I gravitated toward a few prime lenses that I like. I think zoom lenses are a good thing for learning focal length you like. Some people stay with zoom lenses. Since zooms figure so prominently in your post, maybe you haven't settled on a good focal length for a prime yet..? So, just saying slow down :^)

Depending on budget, you may be able to buy only a 15 or a 77
Very different. One focal length, no listed zoom gives you. The other listed zooms give you the 77mm focal length but not the speed... Tough decision for 15 or 77 :^)

[Tan68]

Sorry, I didn't mean to include that long block of quoted text.
Unnecessary. I can't edit and delete it right now, either.
I have been making a hash of this text editor...

[AldaCZ]

If you don't want the WR try a used Tamron 17-50 .. a good copy can please a pixel pepper .. 18-135 I have it 2 days..at 18 corners arent soft but distorted!(not correctable) and until 80 my copy seems to be nice...I have a DA40 and its sharp..compat..but narrow It may not work for group photos

[Tan68]

Pick a peck of pickled pixel peepers

I have a Tamron 17-50 and found it to do as well as an M24/2.8 and A28/2.8
This resolution-wise.
I didn't check light in the frame or stars or stuff like that. The 'test' was just focusing on the same stuff as best I could and matching exposures. Very little difference...

[AldaCZ]

Pick a peck of pickled pixel peepers

I have a Tamron 17-50 and found it to do as well as an M24/2.8 and A28/2.8
This resolution-wise.
I didn't check light in the frame or stars or stuff like that. The 'test' was just focusing on the same stuff as best I could and matching exposures. Very little difference...

Haha Some old lenses can be walked by a kit lens at 35 mm (my sigma Mini wide...and some m42 DDR .. No flame!)

FOr the TAm 17-50 vs DA40 - DA has flat field of focus.

[Tan68]

The kit lens is not bad.
It is kinda like a Powerglide transmission with two gears. :^)
In its power band, it does well. And isn't bad at other times.

I would be interested to see how the Tamron did against the 40 with light sources forming stars. I know the 15, 21 do well (crisp). I know the DA35 is a little mushy, for instance. I remember looking at stars formed by the Tamron and I think they were like the DA35... if I remember correctly. I do think the Tamron is a fine lens. Just curious as some of the finer points beyond resolution aren't often mentioned.

I noticed curvature of field in the Tamron when i got first received it but no really in use for landscapes.

[Stickler]

As of now I have a tamron 28-105, a tamron 70-300 and the da 50. Both zooms were less than $70 combined and I bought them just to see how I liked the FL. THE 28-105 is useful but the IQ is not good enough for me to use it more than just snapping some pics. And I do wish it was a tad longer. I never use the 70-300. And the 50 takes nice pics but there's just something about the look of the images that I'm not 100% happy with. It's a little too narrow I think.
So I'm leaning towards the 15 ltd and the 18-135. Also considering the Tammy 17-50 and eventually the 70-200. Or I'll just skip the other zoom and get a 77mm or the 100 macro. Don't think I'd use much past 50 except for portraits or something specific like that.
I like the size of the 15 but the 17-50 would prolly never come off my camera. But going with the 15 and 18-135, I'd have a pretty useful kit for my style a well. Money wise I think either way is comparable. And from reading reviews, I think either direction would give me great results.
What would be the pros and or cons of either of these kits? I think it's a pretty hard decision and I don't have the experience to know what would be better all around.
Also, would the 17-50 be a good alternative to the da 50? I may just sell that lens to help fund my upgrades.

---------- Post added 09-03-14 at 09:08 AM ----------

Also I forgot to mention. I'm not thrilled with the size of the 17-50. Especially if I were to use it for street photography. But at the same time, my up front cost would be considerably less since I wouldn't add another lens until I specifically needed it. Whereas the 15, I would need something to supplement that in tents of FL.

---------- Post added 09-03-14 at 09:13 AM ----------

Or, lol sorry, should I just get the 18-135 and call it good? Add another lens like the 15 or a uwa zoom on later when I want something a bit nicer?
Thanks in advance.
Steve

I'd say skip the 18-135 as you are duplicating most of your range and you don't necessarily know what you are after yet*. Take a long view and over time do the following.
Add the da15 since you have pretty much no wide and the 15 is magic.
Be on the lookout for a way to trade the da50 for the da 35/2.4 for little/no money (personally, I think 50>35 FOV, different horses...) both excellent IQ though.
Then be on the lookout for a 70, 77, 100, 135 or a Tamron 90 there are tons of those out there, any would cover your short tele excellent IQ needs at whatever FL you need.
Don't be anxious to get there all in one swoop, take calculated steps toward your end goal whatever that is.
*This supposes a predisposition for primes

[AldaCZ]

The kit lens is not bad.
It is kinda like a Powerglide transmission with two gears. :^)
In its power band, it does well. And isn't bad at other times.

I would be interested to see how the Tamron did against the 40 with light sources forming stars. I know the 15, 21 do well (crisp). I know the DA35 is a little mushy, for instance. I remember looking at stars formed by the Tamron and I think they were like the DA35... if I remember correctly. I do think the Tamron is a fine lens. Just curious as some of the finer points beyond resolution aren't often mentioned.

I noticed curvature of field in the Tamron when i got first received it but no really in use for landscapes.

That TAmmy/DA40 Stars comparison would be interesting. I may try it.

Edit: Field curvature can be useful