Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vs Nikon 50 f1.4

[mikie2084]

I want to know which would be better for me? Im leaning towards the Tamron, but want others opinions. I do mostly landscape photography, but wanting a more professionial lense to do some portraits also. I want a lense thats good in low light conditions, but is 1.4 that much better than the 2.8? Even dabling in portrait photography I will still mostly be doing landscapes. If you actually have experiance with both lenses please post any and all photographs that you have with each. I have a D40 so the 50mm will be the new af-s version, im willing to pay for autofocus right now.

Thanks

Mike

 

[NateS]

It sounds like the 50mm f1.4 really isn't right for you. In my opinion, it is way too long for landscapes. I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and 50 f1.8 and probably won't use the 50 much anymore. The tamron is crazy sharp and the zoom makes it much more flexible. You will notice a difference with the 1.4 to 2.8 apertures, but I personally throw my SB-600 on and bounce it when I need the extra light.

 

[blash]

I have the 50 f/1.8 lens and that lens is awesome - the f/1.4 version (which I hope to acquire soon) should be god.

That said, if you're focusing on landscape work, the 50 f/1.4 will be stuck in your closet pretty much forever, so given the choice between the two, I'd go for the Tamron (even though I personally only buy Nikon glass).

I'd like to make an alternate suggestion, like the 24mm f/2.8 that I just bought today off eBay, but I don't know a) if you shoot film/FX or if you shoot DX (considering landscape photography, you should be shooting film), b) what other glass you have. If you already have a nice wide-angle, then you don't need another wide-angle prime and you don't need the 17-50 either, and I would grab a 50mm f/1.8 off eBay since they sell for peanuts and it's more than good enough for dabbling.

 

[shivaswrath]

I'm not sure you're asking the right question - I don't think 50's are ever used for landscape photography, on DX bodies especially.

I use my 50mm (which is about 75mm on a DX body) for portraits, low-lighting shots, and and candids. If I was outside, the 50mm, even on my film body, would be too narrow for what I would consider landscape photography - by the time you stop down, you lose the point of using the 50!

Go with either the tamron 17-50 f/2.8, or as someone above suggested, a wide prime, either the 20, 24, or 28mm f/2.8 Nikkors. . .make sure they AF on your body as well! (those don't on the D40/60 models). . .

 

[Montana]

It depends on the type of landscape photography you like. Some of my best shots were taken in the 100-300mm range. If you like vast/wide expanses, then you won't like the 50mm. I am just pointing out that lanscape is not "always" about wide lenses.

 

[blash]

It depends on the type of landscape photography you like. Some of my best shots were taken in the 100-300mm range. If you like vast/wide expanses, then you won't like the 50mm. I am just pointing out that lanscape is not "always" about wide lenses.

100-300 is not 50.

 

[icassell]

I have the Tamron and it is my everyday walkabout lens. I tend to use my 50mm f1.8 more for portrait and indoor low-light work. The Tamron is very flexible, from landscape to portrait. It is built rock-solid and is tack-sharp with excellent color rendition. In short, I love it. The one improvement I could see would be an ultrasonic motor to speed up and quiet down the focusing (I think Sigma has that on their equivalent lens now and that might be worth investigating). That said, I am very happy with the lens.

Ian

 

[jp_printroomguy]

If your the typical landscape photographer, I would lean towards the Tamron for the extra wide it provides. For most of my landscape photos, I shoot with the ambient light which means I have plenty of light even shooting at higher F stops. That's assuming your not doing sunset/night or stormy situations!

JP_printroomguy :thumbup:
Nikon D1x / Nikon D2h
Nikkor 18-55mm VR, 55-200mm VR, 35mm F/2.0 & 50mm F/1.8 lenses
SB600 / SB800