Buying a Tamron 17-50, any reason to keep my 50mm f/1.8.

Hi,

 

So, in a few weeks I'm going to buy the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It is replacing my

Sigma 18-125mm 3.5-5.6. I also have a 50mm f/1.8, which I occasionally used for

low-light and portrait type shots. The 50mm was handy, since the aperture of the

Sigma 18-125 was useless, in low-light situations. Though, since I plan on

getting the Tamron with a f/2.8, is there any reason that I should keep the 50mm

lens.

 

The only reason that comes to mind is the 1.8 vs the 2.8. But I'm not sure how

much of an issue that is for me personally. (after-all, I have been shooting

with the Sigma 18-125 3.5-5.6, and have managed to get some decent shots.)

 

I'm thinking I could sell the 50mm, and put it towards the Tamron. Though

perhaps, I may not get much for the 50mm.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Thanks,

 

Amol

I forgot to mention, my 50mm f/1.8 is the cheaper $80 version.

Given the already low cost of the 50 f/1.8 new, what would selling it actually get you? A few bucks.

 

I see no reason to sell this lens. It's fast, it's light-weight, and it takes up very little room in a camera bag.

Amol,

 

Personally I wouldn't sell the 50mm. You'll lose a very sharp lens and gain only a few bucks.

 

Based on the reviews I had also decided to buy the Tamron 17-50. But the store I went to had only one copy of the lens and although I didn't see much difference between my 35 f2 and the Tamron at 35mm (both at f2.8), I found the 50mm way sharper than the Tamron at 50mm. I ended up not buying the Tamron (so far). So make sure you get good copy, otherwise you'll be much happier with your 50mm.

 

Good luck!

 

Tjalf

There is always a situation where you might want the faster lens.

Regarding the low pricetag of the 50/1.8, I would say just keep it in your bag.

I own both. After I got the Tamron I haven't used the 50/1.8 much. One of these days I'll dust it off and shoot some more with it - the color and contrast of the 50/1.8 can't be beat. Not worth selling, considering you'll only get a few bucks for it.

The answer is really based on personal choice. Do you see yourself using the lens? Do you see yourself going through the trouble of changing the lens if you want a wider aperture instead of bumping up the ISO? It's a tough one - whenever there is not enough light, one feels more inclined to increase ISO instead of changing the lens. If you can shoot at f/2.8 then it's not worth changing the lens - the Tamron is quite good even at 50mm, it'll take a very large print to show the difference. You may need to use f/1.8 and ISO 1600 sometimes, but you need lots of care with that DOF.

 

If you think you are unlikely to use it, then sell it. No point keeping something that you won't use. You can use the money towards another lens or filters.

 

I'm in the same situation and I'm still holding on to it. So far I think I'd like to keep the ability to use an f/1.8 lens for its creative abilities, but the situations where I'm actually using it show up less and less. I just wish it would still be a normal lens and not so long now with the crop factor...

I once read a horror story of a person that went to Africa. She was using a 28-300 lens and dropped it. She had no backup and was forced to taking wildlife photos with a wide angle lens since she had no backup.

 

Keep it.

One important factor not mentioned thus far is size. Sometime, you will want a small, inconspicuous short telephoto, even if you don't need the wider aperture. A school play for your child may be such a situation (and the larger aperture will help there, too). Considering the small size and cost, the 50 is worth keeping just for that one occasion. Besides, the 50 @ f/2.8 is sharper than the Tamron at 50 & 2.8 (I have both).

First, you will have to test them to compare the results. My bet is the 50 will be clearly better at F2.8 . If the zoom is already excellent at F4, you won't need to carry both.

 

Still, 2 reasons to keep the 50 :

 

First, when you want a smaller and lighter lens (take around, discrete, special filters or close-ups in 52mm size)

 

Second, just to have a backup at home (or in lugage when travelling)

As no one can predict if you?ll be using it or not my suggestion is to buy the Tamron and keep the 50/1.8 for a few months. If you will find yourself using the 50/1.8, keep it. If not, sell it.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

You might want to read this before buying the Tamron. Most people say it's a good lens, but...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&thread=24033377

I sold mine. Bought the Sigma 2.8 and needed some space in my bag. When I thought that I haven't shot more than a couple of rolls with that lens, there's little point in keeping it. I prefer an all-rounder than primes.

 

The funny thing, I bought mine 8 years ago for $80 and sold it now for ?60, at ?1 = $2, I made a profit of $40. Not bad.

Thanks, for all the answers. I guess, I'll hold on to it for the moment, and see if it gets used.

 

Jim, thanks for the heads-up. Other than the Tamron, is there a lens comparable to the Canon 17-55 IS f2.8, in the ~$450 range? Perhaps the Sigma 18-50 2.8, though, I often hear more complaints about Sigma's than Tamron's. I hear the new Tokina 16-50 will be priced in the $600-700 range... Still a little too much for me.

 

Canon should release an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 without IS. How much do you suppose that would cost? The 16-35 cost a chunk of $$, but it is a Full-frame lens, correct?

 

 

Thanks,

Amol

From what I read, the Tamron has a better reputation than the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Both are optically very good, but consistent autofocus accuracy seems to be the bane of both. You sure hear about the problem more with the Sigma though. I owned the Sigma before I bought the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and got disgusted with it's inconsistent focus. Most of the time it was fine, at least in good light, but since I shoot some weddings I couldn't afford to have so many misses in poor light.

 

At $1000, the Canon 17-55 only seems grossly expensive for a lens of this build quality. When you extract the extra cost of a really good IS system ($300), and super fast USM focusing with FTM ($100), and the Canon brand name on the barrel ($200), they are only charging $400 for an amazingly sharp lens. :)

 

I only wish it were that simple.

 

Yes the 16-35 is full frame and built like an L lens should be built. However, the 17-55 has a reputation of being sharper. Plus it has IS.

-- "I owned the Sigma before I bought the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and got disgusted with it's inconsistent focus."

 

Jim ... you got disgusted with the Sigma or the Canon ... as it reads, it appears the be the Canon ... I just want to reassure myself here.

Hi, I bought the Tamron 17 50 2.8 as a backup lens, its now getting more use than 24 70 2.8, and the Sigma 15 30 is backup (had 4 15 30`s in 6yr) 17 50 is lighter focuses well in restaurant and niteclub light, certainly no hassles with focus, just gotta get used to the focus ring turnin in AF. Recently did some entertainer shots wirh it then another night same guy venue & lighting used 50 1.8, sharpness about the same but that extra stop and lighter weight is worth hanging onto, will try the lens with a wedding nex week but I prefer the 24 70 still like to see how it goes.

Well, you better keep it since you can not sell it.

 

Even if you can , it would be 20 USD ..........

 

I think F2.8 is not fast enough to stop action in low light , so you better keep it in case you need very shallow DOF for portrait works or low light moving thing.

 

But if you can , I suggest you to upgrade the Nifty to the f1.4.

 

And get EF85 f1.8 as a set.

 

That said , after I got my Canon 17-55IS , I never touch the 50s, since I need more DOF than f1.8 ever provides all the time for my style of photography, and I know only with the IS , I can manage to do it in low light.

 

I like to shoot at around f5.6 with IS on in lwo light.

Yes it was the Sigma I was disgusted with. Disgust is probably too strong a word really. More annoyance or disappointment. It was an otherwise good lens. The Canon is great. I still mis-focus some, but now it's my fault when I do.