Nikon 35mm 1.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8, or Tamron 28-75 2.8 (<$500 Low Light Travel Lens)

[CR88]

Hello all,

I am in the market for a decent sub $500 travel lens for low light and landscape shots. I recently visited the Grand Canyon with my 18-200mm 3.5 VR and my 85mm 1.4 but found that I struggled when trying to shoot wide in low light situations. I love the 85mm but it didn't really work for landscape and the 18-200 left a lot to be desired. A friend suggested the 35mm 1.8, but I always thought that a zoom would be better as a carry all travel lens and I read good reviews on the Tamron options. The three listed are in my price range. I am not a professional, I'm just looking for a good all around low light travel lens. Any input would be appreciated.

 

[scorpion_tyr]

If you want low light landscape shots then you need a tripod and a remote shutter release, not a fast lens. For landscape shots you'll want your ISO as low as possible and your aperture pretty high, around 18 or so. That'll make your shutter speed pretty slow.

I have the Tamron 28-75mm 1:2.8 and I love that lens! Very sharp and in my opinion a great walk around lens.

 

[christian.rudman]

You already got the zoom, why not go for the sharpness of a prime lens with the fast speed on the 35mm?

 

[pixilstudio]

If you want low light landscape shots then you need a tripod and a remote shutter release, not a fast lens. For landscape shots you'll want your ISO as low as possible and your aperture pretty high, around 18 or so. That'll make your shutter speed pretty slow.

I have the Tamron 28-75mm 1:2.8 and I love that lens! Very sharp and in my opinion a great walk around lens.

so true I have canon and only buy canon im assuming te same is for nikon. i once bought a tameron and regretted it save your money good Glass is forever

 

[clou]

I've got the Nikon 35mm 1.8G and the Tamron 17-50 2.8. If I could only have one, I'd have the Tamron.

These are my reasons:

35mm isn't wide enough for landscape

Wide open at 1.8, the Nikon looks soft. I prefer using it at 2.8. The Tamron is plenty sharp at 2.8 itself.

For a zoom, the Tamron is as sharp as it gets and is a bargain for the ~$400 it costs.

The only reason I would take a Nikon 35mm 1.8G over the Tamron is due to it's small size and portability.

I didn't go for the Tamron 28-75 mainly because 28 isn't wide enough for me to use as a walkaround on a crop sensor.

 

[ghache]

I often bring my camera to parties, camping and all thesse other places where you dont want to drop expensive gears so i had to find an alternative to haulling my heavy and expensive 24-70 everywhere.

I got a deal on the tamron 17-50 and took it. IF i am not shooting any gigs, this lens is mounted on my camera. Its decently made, its not heavey, not big for a 2.8, its fast and picture quality is amazing.

 

[Infinite_Day]

If you look around you might be able to find one of these ATX1116PRODXN Tokina 11mm - 16mm F/2.8 ATX Pro DX Autofocus Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras. used within your budget. It's supposed to be an excellent DX landscape lens and is pretty fast @ f/2.8. It's what I'm saving to get for my landscape lens. A tripod and remote would be a good investment too. Sadly, those are the two of the things I need to get along with a speedlight before I go after another lens. Anybody know of a good place to sell a kidney?

 

[analog.universe]

I have the Tokina, and it's a brilliant landscape lens, but I wouldn't use it for a walk around / general purpose. 16mm is still really really wide. I usually walk around with a 35mm prime, but I don't know anything about the particular Nikon in question.

 

[Infinite_Day]

I have the Tokina, and it's a brilliant landscape lens, but I wouldn't use it for a walk around / general purpose. 16mm is still really really wide.

You're right, of course, that it wouldn't be a good general walkaround lens. I was just throwing out an option because the OP said he/she was having trouble shooting landscape and low light. I also thought it might complement the 18-200 the OP already has. I currently use the kit 18-105 and a 50 1.8D with a bias toward the 50mm as my go-to lens.

 

[CR88]

Thanks for the replies. While I was originally hesitant to go with non Nikon glass, I have been very impressed with what I have seen others get out of their Tamrons. If money were no object I would surely stick with Nikon, but for the price difference it is hard to overlook the value of Tamron.

 

[kylehess10]

Tamron 17-50 all the way. I've owned one for a couple years now and it's one of my sharpest lenses

 

[Netskimmer]

+1 for Tamron 17-50, I love mine.

 

[KmH]

Thanks for the replies. While I was originally hesitant to go with non Nikon glass, I have been very impressed with what I have seen others get out of their Tamrons. If money were no object I would surely stick with Nikon, but for the price difference it is hard to overlook the value of Tamron.

Serif fonts don't work well online from a readability pespective, which is why TPF chose a non-serif font (Verdana) as the default font for the web site.

 

[analog.universe]

Thanks for the replies. While I was originally hesitant to go with non Nikon glass, I have been very impressed with what I have seen others get out of their Tamrons. If money were no object I would surely stick with Nikon, but for the price difference it is hard to overlook the value of Tamron.

Serif fonts don't work well online from a readability pespective, which is why TPF chose a non-serif font (Verdana) as the default font for the web site.

I'll be really glad when we all have 50 megapixel monitors, and serif becomes readable again.. It looks so nice in print but it really doesn't work with current screen technology : )

 

[CR88]

Thanks for the replies. While I was originally hesitant to go with non Nikon glass, I have been very impressed with what I have seen others get out of their Tamrons. If money were no object I would surely stick with Nikon, but for the price difference it is hard to overlook the value of Tamron.

Serif fonts don't work well online from a readability pespective, which is why TPF chose a non-serif font (Verdana) as the default font for the web site.

Actually, I just realized that I could specify a font for my posts. Thanks.