fabian_anthonioz

<p>This is a shot of my tamron 28-75 wide open at f2.8, with no editing at all --> i think it's a great performance, colors, out of focus, sharpness of the subject... god if the tamron just had 8mm more of angular!<br> I think that the most logical choice here is the 16-85 but i would like to keep the magic of f2.8 shots... how do you think this shot would be with the 16-85 at 28mm wide open?, if someone could give me an example it would be great<br> If the 17-55 is such a strong performer most times i'd be happy by carrying just the lens and maybe the 50mm prime and leave the sigma at home, and if i'm going for a UWA journey then just leave the 17-55 out of the bag... this way weight won't be such an issue and everything fits in my small domke bag</p>

<p>Thank you all for your advice, i find all the opinions very useful!<br> <br />I've been asked about how i use my gear... well i mostly do urban and landscape photography, when i travel i come back with 40% of the photos with the 10mm focal length and around 70% in the 10-20mm range. Sometimes i think that i'm abusing the ultra-wide style and i should take photos with less distortion, that's why i've decided to invest in a good quality mid-range zoom to challenge my sigma and push myself to diversify my photos. I barely feel the need to have something longer than 70mm or so, 5% of the time as much and that isn't enougth for me to justify carrying a specific lens<br> About the aperture topic, for me f2.8 is not only a question of low light situations but about the quality, the colors and the light that these lenses obtain, i mean bokeh and out of focus pictures that brings me a lot of creative options. <br> Another aspect that i take into account specially in the last years is carrying the minimum weight with me, having a full photo-filled backpack with me all the time is a pain in the ass sometimes and i'd like to stick to the minimum... that's why i'm not interested in full frame (at least in the short term)<br> here is my flickr if you want to see what i usually do: https://www.flickr.com/photos/29324944@N00/</p>

<p>My actual kit is a D90 + sigma10-20 f4-5.6 + tamron 28-75 f2.8 + nikkor 50mm f1.4 D<br> <br />The tamron is a fine lens but i don't use it much because i find the 28mm too long for my taste and for a portrait i prefer my 50mm prime that is a kick-ass lens<br> so i've decided to sell the tamron and invest around 600$ in two posible ways:<br> 1.- spend it all in a second hand nikkor 17-55 f2.8, it's a good range, sharp and f2.8 all the way, the cons are it's weight and that it's bulky<br> 2.- buy a second hand tokina 11-16 f2.8 + nikkor 16-85 vr f3.5-5.6 and, this way i'd improve my main lens (the sigma) with the sharper and f2.8 tokina and have the 16-85 as complement which is a perfect match for the 11-16 and it's under 500 grams and has VR stabilization</p> <p>what combination would you recommend?, is it worth it to replace the sigma with the tokina?, i'm very happy with the sigma but i find that it has a lot of vigneting and limited aperture for indoor photography specially</p> <p> </p>

<p>thank you all for your opinions!<br> i'm interested in f2.8 zooms because they give me something different to my sigma 10-20 not only in the focal range but in the use: they're sharper, useful with low light and have decent bokeh so better suited for portraits for example. </p>

<p>Hi everyone!<br> My actual kit is a D90 + sigma 10-20 and i also carry a nikkor 50 f1.4D prime and Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I find myself using the sigma 80% of the time, and the 50mm is lightweight and takes no place to carry. I don't use the tamron that much and i'm looking for a nikkor 20-35 f2.8 as complementary lens as the 20-35 matches the 10-20 range and is said to be a razor sharp zoom lens, also is not that heavy/bulky for a f2.8 zoom lens<br> <br />is it a good idea? or maybe i should save the money and stick to my tamron?</p>