# Nikon 35mm 1.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8, or Tamron 28-75 2.8 (<$500 Low Light Travel Lens)



## CR88 (Aug 31, 2011)

Hello all,

I am in the market for a decent sub $500 travel lens for low light and landscape shots.  I recently visited the Grand Canyon with my 18-200mm 3.5 VR and my 85mm 1.4 but found that I struggled when trying to shoot wide in low light situations.  I love the 85mm but it didn't really work for landscape and the 18-200 left a lot to be desired.  A friend suggested the 35mm 1.8, but I always thought that a zoom would be better as a carry all travel lens and I read good reviews on the Tamron options.  The three listed are in my price range.  I am not a professional, I'm just looking for a good all around low light travel lens.  Any input would be appreciated.


----------



## scorpion_tyr (Aug 31, 2011)

If you want low light landscape shots then you need a tripod and a remote shutter release, not a fast lens. For landscape shots you'll want your ISO as low as possible and your aperture pretty high, around 18 or so. That'll make your shutter speed pretty slow.

I have the Tamron 28-75mm 1:2.8 and I love that lens! Very sharp and in my opinion a great walk around lens.


----------



## christian.rudman (Aug 31, 2011)

You already got the zoom, why not go for the sharpness of a prime lens with the fast speed on the 35mm?


----------



## pixilstudio (Aug 31, 2011)

scorpion_tyr said:


> If you want low light landscape shots then you need a tripod and a remote shutter release, not a fast lens. For landscape shots you'll want your ISO as low as possible and your aperture pretty high, around 18 or so. That'll make your shutter speed pretty slow.
> 
> I have the Tamron 28-75mm 1:2.8 and I love that lens! Very sharp and in my opinion a great walk around lens.



so true  I have canon and only buy canon im assuming te same is for nikon. i once bought a tameron and regretted it save your money good Glass is forever


----------



## clou (Sep 1, 2011)

I've got the Nikon 35mm 1.8G and the Tamron 17-50 2.8. If I could only have one, I'd have the Tamron.

These are my reasons:

35mm isn't wide enough for landscape

Wide open at 1.8, the Nikon looks soft. I prefer using it at 2.8. The Tamron is plenty sharp at 2.8 itself.

For a zoom, the Tamron is as sharp as it gets and is a bargain for the ~$400 it costs.

The only reason I would take a Nikon 35mm 1.8G over the Tamron is due to it's small size and portability. 

I didn't go for the Tamron 28-75 mainly because 28 isn't wide enough for me to use as a walkaround on a crop sensor.


----------



## ghache (Sep 1, 2011)

I often bring my camera to parties, camping and all thesse other places where you dont want to drop expensive gears so i had to find an alternative to haulling my heavy and expensive 24-70 everywhere. 

I got a deal on the tamron 17-50 and took it. IF i am not shooting any gigs, this lens is mounted on my camera. Its decently made, its not heavey, not big for a 2.8, its fast and picture quality is amazing.


----------



## Infinite_Day (Sep 1, 2011)

If you look around you might be able to find one of these ATX1116PRODXN Tokina 11mm - 16mm F/2.8 ATX Pro DX Autofocus Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras. used within your budget. It's supposed to be an excellent DX landscape lens and is pretty fast @ f/2.8. It's what I'm saving to get for my landscape lens. A tripod and remote would be a good investment too. Sadly, those are the two of the things I need to get along with a speedlight before I go after another lens. Anybody know of a good place to sell a kidney?


----------



## analog.universe (Sep 1, 2011)

I have the Tokina, and it's a brilliant landscape lens, but I wouldn't use it for a walk around / general purpose.  16mm is still really really wide.  I usually walk around with a 35mm prime, but I don't know anything about the particular Nikon in question.


----------



## Infinite_Day (Sep 1, 2011)

analog.universe said:


> I have the Tokina, and it's a brilliant landscape lens, but I wouldn't use it for a walk around / general purpose. 16mm is still really really wide.



You're right, of course, that it wouldn't be a good general walkaround lens. I was just throwing out an option because the OP said he/she was having trouble shooting landscape and low light. I also thought it might complement the 18-200 the OP already has. I currently use the kit 18-105 and a 50 1.8D with a bias toward the 50mm as my go-to lens.


----------



## CR88 (Sep 7, 2011)

Thanks for the replies.  While I was originally hesitant to go with non Nikon glass, I have been very impressed with what I have seen others get out of their Tamrons.  If money were no object I would surely stick with Nikon, but for the price difference it is hard to overlook the value of Tamron.


----------



## kylehess10 (Sep 7, 2011)

Tamron 17-50 all the way. I've owned one for a couple years now and it's one of my sharpest lenses


----------



## Netskimmer (Sep 7, 2011)

+1 for Tamron 17-50, I love mine.


----------



## KmH (Sep 8, 2011)

CR88 said:


> Thanks for the replies.  While I was originally hesitant to go with non Nikon glass, I have been very impressed with what I have seen others get out of their Tamrons.  If money were no object I would surely stick with Nikon, but for the price difference it is hard to overlook the value of Tamron.


Serif fonts don't work well online from a readability pespective, which is why TPF chose a non-serif font (Verdana) as the default font for the web site.


----------



## analog.universe (Sep 8, 2011)

KmH said:


> CR88 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the replies.  While I was originally hesitant to go with non Nikon glass, I have been very impressed with what I have seen others get out of their Tamrons.  If money were no object I would surely stick with Nikon, but for the price difference it is hard to overlook the value of Tamron.
> ...



I'll be really glad when we all have 50 megapixel monitors, and serif becomes readable again..  It looks so nice in print but it really doesn't work with current screen technology  : )


----------



## CR88 (Sep 8, 2011)

KmH said:


> CR88 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the replies.  While I was originally hesitant to go with non Nikon glass, I have been very impressed with what I have seen others get out of their Tamrons.  If money were no object I would surely stick with Nikon, but for the price difference it is hard to overlook the value of Tamron.
> ...



Actually, I just realized that I could specify a font for my posts.  Thanks.


----------

