Both lenses are very good ones. But to be honest, I'd suggest to get a 35/2.4 or 50/1.4/1.7 instead ...
10-20 > 28-75 is a good combo if you shoot often enough at 28-35mm for most walkabouts and then switch to 10-20 only for wide views (eg. landscapes, buildings)
17-50 is good if you want a walkabout lens that does quite a bit of wide views (eg. landscapes) and then everything else in between (close-ups; portraits; general). It somewhat replaces the 10-20 since the FL overlaps. But it usually can't do wide captures of large buildings (internals/externals)
IMO, 17-50 is better. I'm sure most people will need the 17-28mm range more than the 50-70mm range. You can mount the 17-50 on the camera and shoot all day for holidays, events, family snapshots, walkabout, etc. But with the 28-75 you'll have to pack the 10-20 along for the wider shots, and change lenses more often too.
If you're planning to only use the lens for portraiture or you know that you'll be fine with 28mm on the wide end then the 28-75 is a good choice. But for most people the 17-50 is a better fit for APS-C sensor. I think both are equally good in IQ and similar build quality
Frontiers said:I am considering to get a tamron 17-50mm or a 28-75mm
which is more worth to get if considering that i already own a sigma 10-20mm and a 55-300mm
and IQ wise which is better?
thanks.
Hijacking this thread rather than starting a new one since the heading is quite apt.
Any recommendation have a good budget macro lens?
(remember there was a previous thread to this, but could not find it anymore)
Have been wanting to take macro photos...
Hijacking this thread rather than starting a new one since the heading is quite apt.
Any recommendation have a good budget macro lens?
(remember there was a previous thread to this, but could not find it anymore)
Have been wanting to take macro photos...
Pentax DFA 100mm F4 WR comes to mind.
got such a lens meh?
i think u mean DFA100WR F2.8 is it?
anyway, re affordable macro lens, i agree with the tamron 90 or the 100mm WR (which costs more).
"cheap" macro would mean pure MF. and depending on your style of use, it may or may not suit your needs. AF is something u can switch off when u want to MF. AF comes in handy when u want to use the same lens for non-macro purposes. but the reverse is not true ;p MF is MF all the way.
the good MF macro lenses are getting rarer and the price is not very sane sometimes.
the cheapest solution of course, would be a raynox.
Hijacking this thread rather than starting a new one since the heading is quite apt.
Any recommendation have a good budget macro lens?
(remember there was a previous thread to this, but could not find it anymore)
Have been wanting to take macro photos...
what if I sacrifice my 50mm and where do I find the Reverse ring adaptor? Because my 50 is full M lens hahaha although abit short on range maybe can get a 2x teleconverter plus reverse ring adaptor is it possible? But if get a raynor for 55-300 not sure what is the magnification is it 1:1<(smaller) or 1:1>(larger, can see insect hair sticking out?)
what if I sacrifice my 50mm and where do I find the Reverse ring adaptor? Because my 50 is full M lens hahaha although abit short on range maybe can get a 2x teleconverter plus reverse ring adaptor is it possible? But if get a raynor for 55-300 not sure what is the magnification is it 1:1<(smaller) or 1:1>(larger, can see insect hair sticking out?)
got such a lens meh?
i think u mean DFA100WR F2.8 is it?
anyway, re affordable macro lens, i agree with the tamron 90 or the 100mm WR (which costs more).
"cheap" macro would mean pure MF. and depending on your style of use, it may or may not suit your needs. AF is something u can switch off when u want to MF. AF comes in handy when u want to use the same lens for non-macro purposes. but the reverse is not true ;p MF is MF all the way.
the good MF macro lenses are getting rarer and the price is not very sane sometimes.
the cheapest solution of course, would be a raynox.
panagor 55mm macro or the vivitar 55 K mount tat cost abt 200 sing. Portable, lightweight, low in cost and decent sharpness.
marcus
Full manual lens?