The FishEye 14mm or the Tamron 17-50 @ f/2.8

[cjstarr]

For about the same price you can purchase either one of these lens for the Sony.
So what would you consider are the weak points and strong points of both and why would you like one over the other.
If you have pictures with both lens post them for a side by side comparison.

 

[havoc315]

For about the same price you can purchase either one of these lens for the Sony.
So what would you consider are the weak points and strong points of both and why would you like one over the other.
If you have pictures with both lens post them for a side by side comparison.

It's comparing Apples and oranges.
While the Tamron is a kit upgrade, basically a general purpose lens, the Fisheye is a niche lens.

On the Sony sharing thread, you can see lots of fisheye shots by Mike Sperduto. Some real great fun shots, but a completely different type of shot you get with the 17-50. A fisheye creates lots of distortion -- its the one type of lens that is supposed to create the distortion.

*If* I were going to get a fisheye though, I wouldn't get 14mm --- On a crop body, that's just not especially wide. I'd look at the cheaper Rokinon 8mm fisheye, to truly get the ultra wide fisheye effect.

 

[HPS3]

I second what Havoc said! If I was getting a fisheye for crop sensor, I wouldn't look past the Samyang(Bower, Rokinon, Walimex, Opteka) 8mm f3.5 fisheye. I have both the Rokinon branded one and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. While I love the fisheye, it's pretty much a Disney lens for me mostly. I generally don't use it very often. I do use the Tamron daily as my walk around lens and love it. Mike Sperduto, aka Hockeyman, also used the Tamron as his standard lens. It's really sharp and the aperture is constant. If I could have only one, I would get the Tamron because it will always be used.

You could also buy the both used for the a little more than the cost of a new Tamron.

 

[cjstarr]

I second what Havoc said! If I was getting a fisheye for crop sensor, I wouldn't look past the Samyang(Bower, Rokinon, Walimex, Opteka) 8mm f3.5 fisheye. I have both the Rokinon branded one and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. While I love the fisheye, it's pretty much a Disney lens for me mostly. I generally don't use it very often. I do use the Tamron daily as my walk around lens and love it. Mike Sperduto, aka Hockeyman, also used the Tamron as his standard lens. It's really sharp and the aperture is constant. If I could have only one, I would get the Tamron because it will always be used.

You could also buy the both used for the a little more than the cost of a new Tamron.

HPS3 I have not found either one that cheap. The Tamron used around $250 and the Fisheye around the same. If I see the Tamron under $200 It will be mine.

 

[HPS3]

HPS3 I have not found either one that cheap. The Tamron used around $250 and the Fisheye around the same. If I see the Tamron under $200 It will be mine.

I think list price of the Tamron is $499 without any rebates. I paid $325 for mine in like new condition and the Rokinon fisheye like new for $235.

 

[HPS3]

Look on Fredmiranda.com. I buy most of my gear off of there with good transactions.

 

[Hockeyman]

It's comparing Apples and oranges.
While the Tamron is a kit upgrade, basically a general purpose lens, the Fisheye is a niche lens.

On the Sony sharing thread, you can see lots of fisheye shots by Mike Sperduto. Some real great fun shots, but a completely different type of shot you get with the 17-50. A fisheye creates lots of distortion -- its the one type of lens that is supposed to create the distortion.

*If* I were going to get a fisheye though, I wouldn't get 14mm --- On a crop body, that's just not especially wide. I'd look at the cheaper Rokinon 8mm fisheye, to truly get the ultra wide fisheye effect.

I second what Havoc said! If I was getting a fisheye for crop sensor, I wouldn't look past the Samyang(Bower, Rokinon, Walimex, Opteka) 8mm f3.5 fisheye. I have both the Rokinon branded one and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. While I love the fisheye, it's pretty much a Disney lens for me mostly. I generally don't use it very often. I do use the Tamron daily as my walk around lens and love it. Mike Sperduto, aka Hockeyman, also used the Tamron as his standard lens. It's really sharp and the aperture is constant. If I could have only one, I would get the Tamron because it will always be used.

You could also buy the both used for the a little more than the cost of a new Tamron.

Yay thats me

I love my fisheye and use it way more than I should and sometimes get a little carried away and use it as my walk around lens But it isnt everyone's cup of tea. I also have the Tamron and love it and it was a step up from my kit Sony lens. I got the fisheye first since I knew I had to have it and waited on the Tamron since I had the kit lens in the meantime but im so happy with both of those lenses.

I paid $499 for the Tamron brand new and the Rokinon $299, both I got around this time last year.

 

[ukstitch]

One thing to consider if you haven't done already is that fisheye lenses are "marmite" lenses - you either love the distortion they give you, or you hate it.

If you haven't done already, I'd have a good look around here and on places like flickr at pictures taken with the fisheye lenses and make sure it's something you like.

The tamron 17-50 is a great upgrade to the kit lens - better in low light and sharper images. But - it doesn't really bring anything "new" to the table - just less noise and sharper images.

So - if you like the fisheye effect and are reasonably happy with your kit lens then I would opt for the fisheye. Otherwise, I would opt for the tamron.

 

[AndrewWG]

The Tamron is the best lens I have ever used. Of course I have not yet bothered jumping into too much L glass (I use Canon) except the 70-200 f2.8L. The sharpness of my Tamron is second to none in my opinion. I don't think it CAN get better. Perhaps I have a great copy. I don't know. I would buy the Tamron, sell yuor kit lens somewhere (ebay, etc) and get a little money towards the fisheye.

 

[C&B Young]

I second what Havoc said! If I was getting a fisheye for crop sensor, I wouldn't look past the Samyang(Bower, Rokinon, Walimex, Opteka) 8mm f3.5 fisheye. I have both the Rokinon branded one and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

Agreed. We usually carry 2 bodies at WDW, one has the Tamron the other the Rokinon fisheye. If I had to purchase only one I would go with the Tamron, more overall uses for it than the fisheye lens.

 

[bob100]

For about the same price you can purchase either one of these lens for the Sony.
So what would you consider are the weak points and strong points of both and why would you like one over the other.
If you have pictures with both lens post them for a side by side comparison.

the Tamron 17-50 2.8 will be more versatile than a fisheye and like others have said it's a good upgrade from the kit lens.
also look at the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Difficult one.

If I already had the 17-50mm range covered I'd probably get the fisheye. But I really like the fisheye distortion. I'm not certain what 14mm fisheye you're looking at but is it for aps-c sensors? I have a 16mm fisheye for my full frame and you don't get near the fishy look on a crop sensor. In a way it gave me a relatively fast wide angle for the crop so it became more versatile but it wasn't something that I purchased it for - just a nice bonus.