Wide angle lens- again

[crz4mm2]

I still can not make up my mind....
I am really leaning towards the 17-50 Tamron...

I have also thought about the 10-24.

Anyone have any thoughts.... between the two?

[KAT4DISNEY]

Both are nice lenses but they are different types of lenses and much will depend on what you are looking to photograph. One is an ultra-wide which can be a ton of fun. The other is more a "normal" lens in terms of traditional 35 mm photography.

Do you already have a kit lens or something in the normal range and want a faster lens? That's a good reason to buy the 17-50mm. But if you have something in that range that you are satisfied but want to shoot wider then the 10-24mm is a good choice. Personally I use an ultra wide angle a lot and would choose to have it plus a prime in the normal range or if I had a kit lens that was ok to stick with that. Eventually you'll probably go for both if it's been such a decision so then it's just a choice of which one first! :goodvibes

[DVC Mike]

I love my Nikon 10-24mm lens.

[crz4mm2]

Thanks.
I have a 28-135 kit lens. I also have a 50mm lens that I use a LOT.

[bob100]

I still can not make up my mind....
I am really leaning towards the 17-50 Tamron...

I have also thought about the 10-24.

Anyone have any thoughts.... between the two?

I agree, two completely separate lens for different needs. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a nice and sharp f2.8 "walk around" lens but if you need wide then the Tamron 10-24, Sigma or Canon would work

[crz4mm2]

I agree, two completely separate lens for different needs. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a nice and sharp f2.8 "walk around" lens but if you need wide then the Tamron 10-24, Sigma or Canon would work

Thanks. I was looking for a bit wider than I have.... Right now I have 28-135 and wanted a bit wider.
The reviews for the Tamron 17-50 were pretty good.
The other one, not so much.

Thanks.

[photo_chick]

Just from a field of view standpoint... I use a 28-105 as my walkaround lens on a crop body. I rarely find the need to put the 18-55 I have on there for wider shots. Yes, it's a little wider, but not enough to make a huge difference in my book. Not like the difference you'd see with a 10-24mm.

[crz4mm2]

Just from a field of view standpoint... I use a 28-105 as my walkaround lens on a crop body. I rarely find the need to put the 18-55 I have on there for wider shots. Yes, it's a little wider, but not enough to make a huge difference in my book. Not like the difference you'd see with a 10-24mm.

Thanks Danielle. Do you have any input on Tamron 10-24 ? Thanks again.

[bob100]

Thanks Danielle. Do you have any input on Tamron 10-24 ? Thanks again.

you can compare lens at sites like this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=714&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=271&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

[zackiedawg]

Both lenses should be very fun, and both usable in their own ways, but very very different. The 17-50 is very much a 'normal' lens - wider than what you have, but not really real wide - most folks would consider it a fairly standard photographic range with equivalence of 26ish to 78ish mm on a Canon body.

The 10-24 is well and truly an 'ultrawide' and upon first using this type of lens, it can be downright shocking how close you stand to things and still get them entirely in the frame - and how often people who think they're out of your shot are standing firmly in it. I personally love ultrawide, and I have had a great 2 year experience with the Tamron 10-24mm lens...my gallery of this lens is here:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/tamron_1024mm_f3545_lens

It mostly will depend on what types of photography you want to shoot, and are most likely to need...the 17-50 will be a main walkaround wide to standard lens, while the 10-24 will be an extreme wide specialty lens with some normal wide capability.

[crz4mm2]

Both lenses should be very fun, and both usable in their own ways, but very very different. The 17-50 is very much a 'normal' lens - wider than what you have, but not really real wide - most folks would consider it a fairly standard photographic range with equivalence of 26ish to 78ish mm on a Canon body.

The 10-24 is well and truly an 'ultrawide' and upon first using this type of lens, it can be downright shocking how close you stand to things and still get them entirely in the frame - and how often people who think they're out of your shot are standing firmly in it. I personally love ultrawide, and I have had a great 2 year experience with the Tamron 10-24mm lens...my gallery of this lens is here:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/tamron_1024mm_f3545_lens

It mostly will depend on what types of photography you want to shoot, and are most likely to need...the 17-50 will be a main walkaround wide to standard lens, while the 10-24 will be an extreme wide specialty lens with some normal wide capability.

Thanks so much!

[crz4mm2]

you can compare lens at sites like this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=714&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=271&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

THanks!

[Daisy14'sDH]

My Pentax 12-24 lives on my camera body now. Its rare for me to use anything else when I go out shooting now.

[crz4mm2]

My Pentax 12-24 lives on my camera body now. Its rare for me to use anything else when I go out shooting now.

Thanks. Maybe I will try both and see which I like better...

[Daisy14'sDH]

If you shoot indoors its an easy lens to use, just turn up your ISO, with the Pentax DA its pretty sharp all the way through (mine at least).... I use it for everything! Its downfall is outside as a walk around, just not enough reach if you are after nature but good enough for shots of you and your family enjoying nature... if that makes any sense...

[crz4mm2]

If you shoot indoors its an easy lens to use, just turn up your ISO, with the Pentax DA its pretty sharp all the way through (mine at least).... I use it for everything! Its downfall is outside as a walk around, just not enough reach if you are after nature but good enough for shots of you and your family enjoying nature... if that makes any sense...

So, lets say you were at WDW in Magic Kingdom, in front of the Castle. How close do you have to be to people to get them and the Castle?

I have a hard time unless I "see" it. KWIM?
Thanks!

[Daisy14'sDH]

So, lets say you were at WDW in Magic Kingdom, in front of the Castle. How close do you have to be to people to get them and the Castle?

I have a hard time unless I "see" it. KWIM?
Thanks!

Without distortion of your subject probably and with the background in focus, I think 8-10 feet at f8, theres DOF calculators that will help with that, I'm more of a trial and error guy! I leave the math to the smarter people on the boards!

[crz4mm2]

Without distortion of your subject probably and with the background in focus, I think 8-10 feet at f8, theres DOF calculators that will help with that, I'm more of a trial and error guy! I leave the math to the smarter people on the boards!

THanks again.