Reading mode: Light Dark

Sony 35mm and 50mm f1.8 vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8

Go to last post
A

Apozmao

Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
Hey there; I need some help deciding between these lenses.

I'm an amateur, not new to this forum but first time writing (please excuse my English).

I am currently stuck between purchasing one of the lens mentioned in the subject heading. While aware that the Sony 35mm and 50mm lenses are highly regarded for their prices, I do wonder whether despite being primes, how the more costly Tamron 17-50mm fares in comparison, optical quality wise.

Aside from the natural convenience of having a zoom as opposed to a lens of fixed focal length, what are the other benefits and are they significantly more advanced in either the Sony's or the Tamron?

How usable are the Sony's larger apertures compared to the Tamron's smaller one? Is there a large difference in low light performance? How soft are the Sony's at f1.8 compared to the Tamron at f2.8?

Any other comments on the lenses / topic are very much welcomed.
Thanks you for taking the time to read this and reply (if you do so) :).

Please do excuse any discrepancies in my knowledge.

Thank you, again. :)
 
Read reviews here:

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/386-tamron_1750_28_sony?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/560-sony50f18dt?start=1

Although the Sony is faster (1.8 vs 2.8), it is not very sharp wide open and at 2.8 the tamron is sharper at corners, tamron has much better build and the zoom in useful. I have both, almost never use the 50, tamron is great, also tamron is less noisy for video, if you don't mind paying the extra money, get the tamron, if you really want the 1.8 (it is very sharp at f4) find a used $100 one.

I can upload sample shots of each lens later is you want.
Apozmao said:
Hey there; I need some help deciding between these lenses.

I'm an amateur, not new to this forum but first time writing (please excuse my English).

I am currently stuck between purchasing one of the lens mentioned in the subject heading. While aware that the Sony 35mm and 50mm lenses are highly regarded for their prices, I do wonder whether despite being primes, how the more costly Tamron 17-50mm fares in comparison, optical quality wise.

Aside from the natural convenience of having a zoom as opposed to a lens of fixed focal length, what are the other benefits and are they significantly more advanced in either the Sony's or the Tamron?

How usable are the Sony's larger apertures compared to the Tamron's smaller one? Is there a large difference in low light performance? How soft are the Sony's at f1.8 compared to the Tamron at f2.8?

Any other comments on the lenses / topic are very much welcomed.
Thanks you for taking the time to read this and reply (if you do so) :).

Please do excuse any discrepancies in my knowledge.

Thank you, again. :)
Click to expand...
--
http://www.sonyalpharentals.ca
http://www.4sighted.ca

A900, A77, KM7D, CZ85F1.4, Sigma 105F2.8, Tamron 17-50F2.8, 50F1.8, CZ24-70F2.8, 70-200F2.8.
 
I own the 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8(recently stolen on a33),however i have not used the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 but i use the CZ 16-80mm (sharper than the tamron).

The 50mm was sharp and great for head shots mostly as i used it indoors so sometimes i am limited due to distance. It was sharper than the CZ with outstanding image quality.

The 35mm for me is better than the 50mm in any way(comparable or better than the extremely expensive 35mm f1.4G),also wider hence addressing my only issue with the 50mm.I love its bokeh and its stuck to my a55 almost replacing the CZ. Both primes are a stop faster than the tamron and offer great low light capabilities, they are light and feel cheap though. The tamron is convenient as it is a zoom hence no changing of lenses within that range especially for general walk-around but i doubt its image quality will match any of these cheap primes or outclass the very cheap 18-55mm kit lens by a large margin.

Had i known the joy of using primes earlier, i would'nt have invested in a kit lens as primes put you in a spot where you really need to compose. It all boils down to what you need these lens for. I hope all this helps...
 
Munir,

Thank you for sharing this, the pictures are very nice. regarding sharpness how would you compare the Tamron with the CZ 16-80?

Roland
 
Rearding... How soft are the Sony's at f1.8 compared to the Tamron at f2.8?

The Sony F1.8 at least allow you to take photos at F.8.

But, if you compare both are F2.8 the Sony at F2.8 is sharper than the Tamron at F2.8 if also set at 50mm.
 
Hi, I have the 17-50mm tamron and the 35mm sony prime. Of the two, the 35mm is definitely the winner for me in terms of sharpness and colour. The 35mm just produces gorgeous photos.

Yes, the 17-50 is more 'useful' as a zoom, but I really like the 35.

So I'd recommend just getting the 35 and playing with that - it's cheap and a really nifty little lens :)

Also, you might want to consider waiting and getting the new Sony 16-50mm - I suspect it will be a step up from the tamron 17-50 and in a few months I'm sure the price will come down a bit more.

Taken at f1.8 on the 35mm :)



 
CZ is sharper for sure at zoom end, tamron is sharper at wide end, both are close, but it's a trade off of extra speed (2.8) or extra zoom.

If you were just buying I think I would advise for the tamron, but once you have a CZ (or two ;)) no point in switching I feel. Get a fast prime instead, even the cheap 50 1.8.

--
http://www.sonyalpharentals.ca
http://www.4sighted.ca

A900, A77, KM7D, CZ85F1.4, Sigma 105F2.8, Tamron 17-50F2.8, 50F1.8, CZ24-70F2.8, 70-200F2.8.
 
Primes are always much sharper than zooms, 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 are of no exception

My Tamron 17-50 2.8 is not sharp and the build quality is bad as well. I will recommend you to look at the new Sony 16-50/2.8.
--
Mark K
 
i have to sat that the tamron 17-50mm is extremely sharp even wide open. i just bought the sony 16-50mm and i think the tamron is marginally sharper. primes might be sharper than both of them, but they're all usable and sharpness should not be a concern at all.

i would definitely recommend the sony 16-50 2.8 as well. focusing is snappier and over construction is solid. if price is a concern, the tamron works nearly as well, or even better in the iq department. i would say get the primes after having a normal zoom. they're give better results especially the subject isolation you get from f1.8, but it's very restrictive in many ways. and no, having multiple prime lenses does not match the versatility of a zoom.
Mark K said:
Primes are always much sharper than zooms, 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 are of no exception

My Tamron 17-50 2.8 is not sharp and the build quality is bad as well. I will recommend you to look at the new Sony 16-50/2.8.
--
Mark K
Click to expand...
 
Thank you all, your comments and advice are very much appreciated. :)
I think I may still be required to ponder the situation some more.^^

Thanks again, everyone.
 
no text
 
I own the 28mm f2.8 and the 50mm but I find myself changing lenses too often and from what I've read the Tammy is a very good performer and here in LA, there is a Tamron promotion going on.
--
Nick P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top