How much more light does a constant f/2.8 zoom give compared with an 18-55mm kit lens?
Asked 6/23/2013
4 views
2 answers
0
I shoot with a Nikon D3100 and the 18-55mm kit lens, and I’m considering a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for better indoor and low-light shooting. I’d like to understand two things:
- How does a lens like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 generally compare to the Nikon 18-55mm kit lens in image quality such as sharpness and overall optical performance?
- In real-world use, how much more light does f/2.8 actually let in compared with the kit lens, which is f/3.5 at the wide end and quickly becomes f/5-5.6 as you zoom? How much difference would that make for shutter speed or ISO when trying to shoot indoors without flash?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
11
The Tamron is known to be optically very good and sharp wide open across the frame. I know semi pro Nikon users who use that one on a crop camera for e.g. wedding shots. The F number on your kit number is only F3.5 on the widest and if you go into Av and keep an eye on it, you see it drops very quickly to F5-5.6. The range 2.8 - 4 is a stop (double the shutter time - F3.5 vs 2.8 is a factor 1.56) and 4-5.6 is another stop (quadruple the shutter time).
Now the thing is that the longer the focal length the shorter the shutter needs to be so it is working against itself. at 18 you can do fine with 1/27s, maybe 1/40s to be sure, while at 50mm you need 1/75s minimum or 1/125 to be sure.
Another problem is that if you get serious and try to control the composition including depth of field, ambient/flash light ratio, exposure manually, you have to worry about zooming just a bit as it might change your balance.
Also if you have a filter on that makes everything darker, a Fx-5.6 lens will go darker than F5.6 for most part of your zoom range, disabling the AF which doesnt work under F5.6.
So this is all the trouble you are relieved of in a fixed aperture lens.
If your most important objective is sharp indoor photos without flash, you might need to sacrifice the convenience of zooming, and go straight for F1.4 or F1.8 primes. That's 1-2 stops faster yet from the F2.8. A F1.4 50mm is 16 times faster than your kit lens. When I shoot indoor in normal living room light I already have to use Iso 800 or 1600 depending on the light and whether I use 28mm, 50mm or 85mm. I do stop it down a bit to F2.2 to improve sharpness a bit and get a bit more focus in DOF and that gives a fast enough shutter (1/50s - 1/150s).
Originally by user11455. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user11455
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
A constant f/2.8 zoom is a meaningful upgrade for low light. Compared with f/3.5, f/2.8 lets in about 1.6× as much light (roughly 2/3 stop). Compared with f/4 it’s 1 stop more light, and compared with f/5.6 it’s 2 stops more light, or 4× as much.
In practice, that means you can use a faster shutter speed or lower ISO for the same exposure. For example, if a scene needs 1/30s at f/3.5, f/2.8 would let you shoot around 1/50s at the same ISO. At the long end, where your kit lens is often around f/5.6, f/2.8 can be a much bigger help.
That matters because longer focal lengths also need faster shutter speeds to avoid blur, so the kit lens loses light right where you often need it most.
On image quality, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is generally regarded as optically very good and sharp, including wide open, and is widely used on crop cameras. So you’re not necessarily trading away quality just to get the wider aperture.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC vs non-VC: is stabilization worth it, and are they upgrades over an 18-55mm kit lens?
Canon EF-S 15-85mm plus 50mm f/1.8 vs EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 for a 550D
Best portrait lens options for a Nikon D90 under $1000
Is the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 a worthwhile upgrade from an 18-55mm kit lens?
How do the Canon 55-250mm, 75-300mm, and 70-300mm differ, and which makes sense after the 18-55 kit lens?