[asw66]

I'm agonising over my next lens purchase, which would upgrade my kit lens. (I kinda like kicking ideas like this around and around before making a significant purchase.)

For a few weeks I've been thinking that the Tammy 28-75 would be my next lens, but then I noticed that the FA 43 is available for a very similar price. Of course one has the zoom range, the other is nearly a stop faster.

I'm still leaning towards the Tammy, but I'd like to hear from anyone familiar with both as to which would make a better walkaround lens.

Thanks

AW

[paolojackson]

Just think what will serve your needs more. I would go for the 43 because the Ltds are just that good. But I've shot with the 28-75 and for the price its a great lens.

[farfisa]

I'm agonising over my next lens purchase, which would upgrade my kit lens. (I kinda like kicking ideas like this around and around before making a significant purchase.)

For a few weeks I've been thinking that the Tammy 28-75 would be my next lens, but then I noticed that the FA 43 is available for a very similar price. Of course one has the zoom range, the other is nearly a stop faster.

I'm still leaning towards the Tammy, but I'd like to hear from anyone familiar with both as to which would make a better walkaround lens.

Thanks

AW

As a kit lens upgrade, the Tamron is a great choice. I had one for a while, very sharp even wide open great bokeh, but sold it when I got the DA* zooms. I still think it's a great lens though, and if it went down to 24mm, I'd probably still have it!

The 43 wouldn't replace your kit lens, but it's more than a stop faster than the Tammy (2.0-2.8 is a full stop), and is a very useful focal length, great for people, and has the speed for indoors. I've had great results wide open too.

[redpigeons]

I would get the 43 and start saving for a 70-700 zoom

but again this is me and my needs I find that I am doing fine with a prime on the mid range and need the zooms for the longer edges .

if you were talking a bout the 16-50 its a deferent story BC then you would get the wide end but 28-70 is just very close to 43

[CheddarGav]

Never owned it but seen enough to be convinced that the FA43 is a classic, besides which, I'm a prime nut so I'd go with that everytime...

For the record, I owned the Tamron once, good lens... but not in the same league

[farfisa]

Another thing--make sure you check the forum marketplace and save some cash by buying used! The Tamron goes around $250 US, but the 43 holds its value more.

I bought the Tamron used, but the 43 new. Might be just me, but I knew the 43 would be sticking around longer

[kenyee]

I wouldn't buy the Tamron used....I returned 3 copies that had BF or halo'ing issues...

[aleonx3]

I have the 43mm and I like it very much. Since I don't have the Tamron to compare with, I can only speak on what this lens can do - flare control is very well contained as shown in the following picture (pointing almost directly to the Sun).

[HermanLee]

AW,

I was in the same situation with you before.

So after all of the buying and selling experience, now at least I learn that:
- If you want to do creative/artistic shooting: PRIME lens is the best (in your case 43 Ltd)
- If you want to shoot event/wedding type: ZOOM is the best ( in your case Tamron 28-75mm)

I found the focal length of 28-75mm is perfect for event and portrait.

Even among the 3 Limiteds, I found that 43 has the most character. Some might like it, some might not. But for me, that's the lens I like the most.

One time I only brought FA43 Ltd and FA 85/2.8 Soft to my friends wedding.
They had their own Pro Photographer with expensive Canon gears.
Funny thing is at the end the bride chose my photo for her Thank You card to send to her guests.

FA43 for portrait:


FA43 does macro too (attached to Vivitar 2x MFTC):

[NaClH2O]

AW: They are COMPLETELY different lenses. I have both, I use both. I love both. If I'm in a walkaround "just shooting" mode I'd choose the Tamron over the Pentax. If I'm in a I want the best IQ "portrait style" shots, then I'd use the Pentax. I don't think you can really compare them, they are truely very different beasts.

NaCl(apples and oranges my friend)H2O

[davef]

I've used both and both are generally very good. The tradeoffs are as you noted and the 28-75 is way bigger and heavier than your kit lens or the 43ltd. Personally, I prefer the 43 but it does need some others to fill out the line. If you are looking at primes, consider the DA Limiteds as well. By all accounts they offer equivalent IQ in a smaller, less expensive (albeit slower) package. Dave

[ll_coffee_lP]

Shocking that almost everyone above said pick the FA43

If you want a zoom to replace your zoom kit lens then you absolutely can't go wrong with the Tammy.

If you have a hankering for going with primes only instead the FA43 is a great lens.

If you are fence sitting and don't have an FA50 yet...then get the Tammy and the FA50 and have the best of both worlds - and save yourself a heap of cash over the Tammy and FA43.

c[_]

[pcarfan]

Fa43 .....

[Cosmo]

Primes>zooms.

[gotium]

Can't speak for the zoom, but the 43 is a fantastic lens for walking around, particularly for shots of people you know. The odd focal length is just long enough to get a little intimacy without having to step back away from your subjects. This was my first digital SLR lens and I would never give it up. In fact, I just bought a second one after dropping my first.

Personally, I prefer using a prime for some hard-to-define sense of 'seeing' the frame.