Wondering about this... I'm finding the 16-85mm to suck so hard outside of well-lit conditions... and I'm shooting a lot of family stuff that requires zooming in and out a bit. The 35mm 1.8G I have is working well though.

I'm curious whether I should stick with a 35mm 1.8g and 50mm 1.8g... or go with a 35mm 1.8g and 17-50mm f2.8... which would then lead me to wondering if I should already ditch the 16-85 (which I love in well lit conditions, but man... indoors it's a slouch). The VR on the 16-85mm is useless to be honest.

I *am* a beginner, but I'm still curious about the comparison between a 50mm 1.8G and the 17-50mm Tamron f2.8. The difference is basically on sale $220 vs. $500.

No... I'm not buying this right away... but I'm already considering ditching the 16-85 (which would fund a 17-50 purchase). It just depends. On sunny days I absolutely love the 16-85 though... But it wouldn't make sense to have a 17-50 and a 16-85 at all.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jul 19 2013 09:14pm

Basically I'm wondering if it's worth selling my 16-85 already in order to purchase a Tamron 17-50mm. I'd net $0 loss in the process, but the Tamron is technically a cheaper lens.

I'm still trying to decide for myself whether the switch is worth it. The loss in zoom range might actually matter... however, that aperture just makes for better looking photos in so many situations. Again, I'm a beginner, but I can see the value of a constant f2.8 aperture... and getting usually f4.5-f5.6 with my shots on the 16-85 is just a bummer a lot of the time.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jul 19 2013 10:00pm

lol

prime.

I'm just having difficulty finding a relatively quantitative comparison of the contrast, sharpness, broken, etc of the 50 1.8g pitted against the tamron at f2.8.

I think primes might make more sense though. I only need f2.8 and lower at 35mm in dx or higher. At anything wider I'm usually doing scenic shots, group shots, etc.

Still amazed at how well the 16–85 is reviewed. I find with proper use it is not sharp outside good daylight... Except at f3.5 on wide shots it can pass in lower light (usually don't want an aperture with any more dof at that focal length).

Hopefully what I'm saying isn't it or any and I'm actually picking up on the correct stuff.

I think if I stick with this and remain picky, any future purchases will be based on aperture very much so.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jul 20 2013 03:34pm

Tonigt so crad?

? Not sure if you're speaking English.

Old thread. I won't be picking up a 17-50mm at all. My next lenses will be primes, followed by a 24-70mm when I switch to FX... which won't be until new FX offerings at better prices roll around in a year or two or whatever...

Also interested in the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 at $1200, maybe over the 85mm 1.8G, for portraiture. Not sure.

All of this is out of my price-league until I get myself a stable job for the semester, determine my costs, etc. I've already spent my cash for the year on camera equipment, and I think my budget will be more along the lines of $1-1.5k per year for upgrades out of personal funds... so I need to save. I want a tripod, I want lighting equipment & flash units, I want faster lenses in both zoom and primes... and I definitely cannot have all of that at once. I have lots to learn, and lots more to do with what I've got at the moment.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Aug 8 2013 06:49pm

First of all, prime lenses are almost always superior in terms of image quality and creative possibilties. having a 35mm and a 50mm though, doesnt seem to make alot of sense to me. Usually people go for a combination of lenses that allow them to get different looks and / or possibilities. the 35mm and the 50mm are so similiar to each other, that its pretty much a waste of money, especially if you are just beginning to build up your equipment and have a tight budget.

if you want versatility, go for a 24-70mm. You can check out tamrons new lens, its fairly cheap compared to canons and has a really good performance. if thats not in your price range, go for cheap primes like the 24mm 2.8, the 50mm 1.8, the 85mm 1.8, or a 100mm 2.8. All of them are great starter lenses with good image quality and rather low prices. If you can afford it, its only natural that I recommend you to get the L lenses.

oh and PS: I´d stay away from sigmas 70-200mm. kinda blows. the tamron is much better imO.

gl

Hmmm, fair enough. Although I think the 50mm would make sense still alongside the 35mm. I find the 30% difference makes the out-of-focus backgrounds look much different (and more pleasing) at a 50mm focal length, and on DX it's really 52.5mm versus 75mm, which is a large enough shift. The price is very low too (the only two primes I'm looking at are the 50 and the 85). I am interested in a wider-angle prime, but that would only make sense if I shifted to FX (and my 16-85mm is very strong on the 16mm end).

I'll keep in mind the 70-200mm thing. I *really* do want a good f2.8 70-200mm, but the 24-70mm will be worth the money 3x over before the 70-200mm would be worth its price (and the 70-300 is great in that 70-200 range, and when I want f2.8 and under, the 85mm 1.8G will be excellent for the job in most scenarios).

I think the jist of all of this is that I want more than I can afford... but I think part of it is that having all of the pro gear isn't *that* expensive... $4000 for the pro zoom lens duo, $1600 for a pro body... in the grand scheme that's good pricing. But still too much for me considering I've already dumped about $2400 into the hobby.

buying gear is a never ending process. you cant expect to get everything at once and be done with it. that would be boring and take the fun out of it.