Question about lenses.

I haven't used the Tamron lens mentioned, or the 55-250 in the OP ... or the 50 1.8 for that matter - but I do have the 1.4 version - by all accounts the 1.8 version is just as good in most areas. The areas where it is not as good are AF performance and bokeh (fewer aperture blades = harder edged, pentagon shaped bokeh).

That Tamron won't be an 'addition' to what you have already - it will be a replacement (which is not necessarily bad). Just don't kid yourself and think you will have two lenses to chose from. How much do you think you'll be using the kit lens once you have a better lens of the same focal lengths? (If you buy the Tamron, you should try to sell the kit lens.)

The 50mm would be an addition. Yes, the kit lens covers that focal length, but you will not find a faster lens for your budget.

Honestly, getting the 50 and maybe saving a little more for the 55-250 sounds like the best option. (Or sell your kit lens, get the Tamron, and use the money from selling the kit lens to jump start saving for the longer lens.)

You don't want to end up with 2 or 3 lenses that all stop at 50mm... So far it sounds like your options are upgrade what you have already (get the Tamron 17-50), get the 50 (then you'll have a slowish wide-to-normal zoom, and a fast prime), or get the 55-250 (then you would have two slow zooms, but you would have a pretty decent range covered). Or possibly some combination of those if you come up with a little more money.


If it were me, I'd get the 50 and then save up for the other two.
 
Thank you guys for your opinions and advice. I've taken them all to note. You guys have patience!
 

Most reactions

Back
Top