F2.8 Lenses

[AlexColeman]

I have seen stuff about Tamron and Sigma lenses that are F2.8 for under $500. They are usually like 17-50. Are they going to be a major improvement over my 16-85?

 

[ANDS!]

Qualify "major". You should be getting sharp shots from that 16-85.

 

[AlexColeman]

I am, I am just wondering if it would be a beneficial upgrade. Or more of a lateral move.

 

[ANDS!]

I am, I am just wondering if it would be a beneficial upgrade. Or more of a lateral move.

It's not going to be lateral. The constant F/2.8 also demands a "sharper" lens, which you should get. What I would ask, is do you need that increase - which you might not even see for awhile - or would you rather compliment the 16-85. If you already have your focal lengths covered, then I would upgrade the lens if you are ready to do so, and want that extra stop of light a constant aperture will provide.

 

[AlexColeman]

Well, I just got the 70-200 2.8 VR, so I am covered tele, and I don't find a need for Ultra Wide. Macro, and portrait is also covered, so I would really just look for a good normal to go along with the 200.

 

[ANDS!]

If you have the 70-200 F/2.8 (sheesh. . .how many kidneys did you sell), I wouldn't bother. First ask, where are you using the 16-85. I see you have the 50MM, so I can't imagine you are putting that away to swap to the 16-85 indoors. So if the 16-85 is staying on OUTDOORS, there's no light concerns. Perhaps on cloudy days, or near twilight, but then thats when you whip out the F/1.4 anyway.

It's funny - I just grabbed a 80-200 F/2.8, and I'll be damned if its left my camera in the two weeks I've had it. When it has, usually the 50MM F/1.4 goes on. Like you, the other lenses are situational and outside what I'm usually hitting. So, long story short, save your money, and invest in a Speedlight instead.