Thinking of getting more lenses

Jony27

Jony27

Jony27

Soldato
Joined
15 Aug 2010
Posts
8,825
Location
N. Ireland
Hi all,

I currently have a D3300 and 35mm 1.8 prime.
At times I find myself limited to what I can shoot.
No wildlife and no landscapes.
I've been thinking of getting a tamrom 17-50 mm 2.8 non Vc to cover the landscape aspect and a Nikkor 50-300mm to cover wildlife.

My question is, is the tamrom worth it over what I have?

Thanks.
 
When I had a DX camera (D7100) the 35mm f/1.8 was all I shot with. Was perfectly fine for landscapes.

Stick with the 35mm, as it's a stunning lens for the price, and pick up something longer for the wildlife.
 
Last edited:
I would definitely get something that goes wider and longer. Tamron 17-50 is good but I preferred the focal range Nikon 16-85mm. Going form 16mm to 85mm without swapping lenses and without giving up optical performance was a life changer. The newer 16-80mm would be siting on my camera, if I had a DX camera!


The 35mm is a nice lens but it is not a very interesting focal length for me. It was my least used lens so I gave it to my sister since it sat untouched for years. Optically it is great but it didn't have the perspective control that I wanted and the photos were pretty dull, just not suiting my style.
 
I use the Tamron 17-50 VC on my D7100 as a general walkaround and love it. I would definitely recommend it for the price. I find it pin sharp and at around 270 notes its a fraction of the price of the 16-80mm nikon. I also have a 70-300 and the 35mm F1.8 nikon. I rarely have the 35mm on the camera which is a shame really as it is a good lens.

A few recent Tamron pics..

_DSC0370 by Skalaberg, on Flickr

_DSC9814 by Skalaberg, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom