As the title shows, I'm thinking of getting a walk around lens and both prices are around the same. However, I might get 200$ off the Tamron due to the presence of 2nd hand lens. The question would be: what's a good walk-around lens? I do have a wide angle already, hence I'll be looking for mid range. I plan on buying the 70-200mm VC USD later, so I guess telephoto's not the issue. Everyday usage is what I'm looking for. Budget dictates that I choose one of these. What would be my best option?
Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art vs Tamron 24-70mm VC USD?
- Thread starter abcde12345
- Start date
Humm. Well let's see. Do you want to be able to shoot at 50mm ridiculously well in any situation that's environmentally friendly, or do you want to shoot 24-70mm very very well in most situations with image stabilization and weather sealing?
Upvote
0
I love my Tamron although I have focusing problems for the second time now 
But the FL is very useful on both APS-C and FF and I like to have IS/VC, I don't care how fast it is. Not that I don't like fast primes, but for me, IS is more important. And with the Tamron, you can pretty much shoot anything, events, street, travel, even sports, I tried it successfully. I think it's the far more flexible solution. 
But the FL is very useful on both APS-C and FF and I like to have IS/VC, I don't care how fast it is. Not that I don't like fast primes, but for me, IS is more important. And with the Tamron, you can pretty much shoot anything, events, street, travel, even sports, I tried it successfully. I think it's the far more flexible solution.
Upvote
0
I'm using full frame, so that's something. I don't really care about weather sealing since I don't go out and shoot in the rain or play with snowflakes, so that's another. I use my camera mostly for gatherings, social events, travels and stuff.
Upvote
0
You say you don't need the lens for either wide-angle or telephoto. I guess then on the 24-70 you don't need the 24-35 part, and maybe not the 70 end either if you get the 70-200 (or if you just crop a little bit in post).
I think the wider aperture would be more valuable than VC. I find I shoot in bad light a lot, and if I didn't have a 1.4 or 1.8 prime to use, I would have to jack up the ISO so high the noise and lack of detail would make me miserable.
Also, as for the lower shutter speed you can get with VC, two things:
1.). The f/1.4 prime lens is 2 stops faster than the f/2.8 lens, so that offsets the probably 2-3 stops you could realistically expect to gain from VC, even if it claims 3-4 stops.
2.). Vibration control is much less helpful or important at 50mm than it would be at a long focal length like 400mm. I very rarely am able to shoot at anything slower than 1/50th because I usually have moving subjects. VC only helps you with camera shake blur. It does nothing to help you with subject motion blur.
On top of this, you get the use of a much shallower depth of field with the prime, for when you want that for creative reasons.
On top of that, with the Sigma 1.4 prime,you get a lens that is considerably sharper. It is probably just a little smaller too, though not tremendously so.
I have the Sigma Art 35, and that thing lives on my camera. I thought i would always want a zoom, but i dont miss it. I actually enjoy how the fixed 35mm lens makes me move myself into position to shoot, and it makes me get a lot more pleasing framing in the process, compared to just zooming in and out with a zoom.
It really makes beautiful colors and super sharp images. Supposedly the 50 is even a little more impressive.
I think the wider aperture would be more valuable than VC. I find I shoot in bad light a lot, and if I didn't have a 1.4 or 1.8 prime to use, I would have to jack up the ISO so high the noise and lack of detail would make me miserable.
Also, as for the lower shutter speed you can get with VC, two things:
1.). The f/1.4 prime lens is 2 stops faster than the f/2.8 lens, so that offsets the probably 2-3 stops you could realistically expect to gain from VC, even if it claims 3-4 stops.
2.). Vibration control is much less helpful or important at 50mm than it would be at a long focal length like 400mm. I very rarely am able to shoot at anything slower than 1/50th because I usually have moving subjects. VC only helps you with camera shake blur. It does nothing to help you with subject motion blur.
On top of this, you get the use of a much shallower depth of field with the prime, for when you want that for creative reasons.
On top of that, with the Sigma 1.4 prime,you get a lens that is considerably sharper. It is probably just a little smaller too, though not tremendously so.
I have the Sigma Art 35, and that thing lives on my camera. I thought i would always want a zoom, but i dont miss it. I actually enjoy how the fixed 35mm lens makes me move myself into position to shoot, and it makes me get a lot more pleasing framing in the process, compared to just zooming in and out with a zoom.
It really makes beautiful colors and super sharp images. Supposedly the 50 is even a little more impressive.
Upvote
0
