Currently I'm shooting with a D300 and 17-55 f/2.8, and have recently picked up a little 50 1.8, and I have fallen in love with fast lenses. Obviously the next step up would be the 85 1.4, and I'm seriously contemplating selling my 17-55 (don't get me wrong, excellent, excellent lens) to pick up a Tamron 17-50 and 85 1.4 as well.
I shoot a lot of indoor stuff, and find 2.8 slightly slow at times, and the extra 2 stops of the 85 1.4 will come in handy. I'm slightly dubious about the difference between 50mm and 80mm however, as I want to drop the £500 into a lens I will be using a lot, and I'm scared 85 will be a bit niche.
Just wondering really what the ideal set up would be for indoor events, concerts and functions. Sorry if I'm sounding a bit doolally but I love my 17-55 but I read all these great reviews of the Tamron and wonder if the 17-55 can actually be that much better.
Edited by BenFPhotog on Sep 02, 2008 at 08:44 PM GMT
Do not sell the 17-55, if you do you will regret it.
For £500, I'd say dump the 50/1.8 and get a 50/1.4. You can also add a 30/1.4 and if you want a fast tele, look at a 105/1.8 AIS. The 50/1.4 and 105/1.8 are my favourite lenses. If I was to have only one lens, I'd have the 50/1.4.
If you're shooting events professionally there almost no substitute for the 17-55. I tried the Tamron and found it's focusing in low light to be unsatisfactory for paid gigs. I know other people use it and are happy, but I don't see it ever cutting it.
For me, 85mm on a crop body is too long for a lot of the indoor stuff I do. I'm either between 17-35mm's or out around 200mm.
I'd rent the 85 first and see what you think for your intended purpose.
Sep 02, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
BenFPhotog wrote:
Hmm, I think I may get a 50 1.4, as that will be a nice, useable length for me, and it's not too pricey. Is it actually as sharp as the 50 1.8?
Also, how does the Sigma compare to these two?
Many thanks.
My 50/1.4 was much better than the 50/1.8 it replaced.
Follow some of the good advise here.
Keep the 17-55 f/2.8
I've been thru all this......I had the 50 f/1.8 and rarely used the lens - there just wasn't anything exciting about the lens. On a whim I sold the 1.8 and picked up the 50 f/1.4 and it's one of my favorite lenses, just seems to offer a bit more WOW to the images. Plus its a relative inexpensive upgrade to a 1.4 lens.
Save some $$ and if your looking at an 85mm, start out with the 1.8 version as the reviews of this lens vs the 1.4 version are probably 50/50 for each. I ended up with the 85 f/1.4 and it is a great lens, but not sure if it's actually worth the extra $$ over the 1.8 version - not saying its not a "better" lens as it is, you just need to weight if the improvements are worth the extra cost. Also note that 85mm on a DX body is generally to long for indoors. The 50mm is at times to long....I'll be looking at the Sigma 30 f/1.4 as well.
Michael
Edited by MichaelKirk on Sep 03, 2008 at 10:40 AM GMT
I just sold my 17-55 sharp as a tack it was ........hope I wont miss it
Nikon 24-70 coming tomorrow supposed to be even better
Got to get ready for full frame have you noticed DX lenses going down in price
I use a D300. I recently got a 50mm 1.8 but felt it was too soft wide open. That, combined with the softness you get anyway due to the paper-thin DOF meant that I couldn't see it being much use, so I upgraded it to a 1.8 85mm. I'm not sure if this is much sharper wide open, but at least it's a "portrait" lens and so occasionally comes in handy for that, whereas I felt the 50 fell between two stools. Like the others say, the 85 is surprisingly long for indoor use.
Not having used primes for years before dabbling with these two, I have to say that I get well flumoxed in any sort of fast-moving scenario because zooming with your feet is so often not an option. My conclusion is that my 17-55 stays on the camera unless I know there's going to be a period of calm in a place with lots of room!
The 17-55 is a well built heavy lens. Heavy enough that I often choose to grab a prime, or a dx zoom if I'm just out walking around. But sooner or later an assignment comes up, and its is my go to lens. I am always, and I mean always impressed by how well it does.
For no flash low light I tend to use the 50 1.4.
But as long as I have a dx camera in the stable I can't see myself getting rid of the 17-55. It just works.
I used to own the 85 1.8 and have been mulling over getting it again, or the 85 1.4, or the 105 f2.0 dc. But I wouldn't trade the 17-55 for it....
I own and use extensively the combo you first asked about -- a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and the Nikon 85/1.4. For me, it's perfect, and I would never swap them for a 17-55/2.8 and a lesser fast lens.
The Tamron rivals the Nikon zoom in image quality, and it has the benefit of being considerably smaler and lighter. Mine is quick to focus (on a D80), and handles great. I can't stomach the idea of dropping a grand on a big heavy lens that is, at the end of the day, a not especially fast midrange zoom.
The 85/1.4 is exceptional, and I use it indoors a LOT. I don't have a problem with it being too long, though it is indeed a definite step longer than the zoom. I also have a 50/1.8, and used to have a 50/1.4. Both are fine lenses, but pale in comparison to the 85/1.4. Nothing matches its sharpness, tonal character, and bokeh. It's as close to magic as a hunk of glass can be.
I've considered adding a Sigma 30/1.4 to get something wider that is truly fast, but so far I've held out. I still might get one, though looking ahead to FX, I may just skip it.
Like many have already said, I'd keep the 17-55. I also have the sigma 30 1.4 and the Nikon 50 1.8 but have come to think of them - well - the 30 in particular more as specialty lenses. When doing wedding work or shooting assignments, the 17-55 is on one of my bodies 90% of the time or more.
Despite what everyone's saying, I keep leaning towards the Tamron. Tests show no real difference optically, it's smaller, lighter, but the only think I'm curious of is the focus speed.
You have to make your own choice, of course. I'd keep the 17-55. For fast primes, I'd get the 50/1.4 first, then either the 85/1.8 and Sigma 30/1.4 (buy your preferred focal length first). All three of these primes will cost you the same as an 85/1.4... and you'll be much better prepared to make the call on whether the 85/1.4 is worth $1200 to you.
Ben, you clearly still have buyers remorse over that 17-55
Having said that, if you can somehow afford to keep the 17-55 and pick up a fast prime in addition, then that would be ideal. I will say this though, the 85 f/1.4 is just wow. It's a very impressive lens, mine is very sharp wide open, and has great bokeh. Just be sure you focus correctly with it, as the DOF is pretty narrow...
Ahh! I think I'm just gonna' suck it up and stay with the 17-55. I read a quote earlier that said something like:
If I want a lens that's good for the money, and not for the wows, get the 17-50.
If I want a lens that's good for the money, and for the wows, and that works. And works. Get the 17-55.
Ben. You'll regret not getting the 85/1.4 . They don't call it the "cream machine" for nothin'! You can obtain that three dimensional look that Zeiss lenses give you.
. They don't call it the "cream machine" for nothin'! You can obtain that three dimensional look that Zeiss lenses give you.