Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
The Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8 might be worth a look. It’s got a reputation for excellent optical quality. See this PDF brochure for more info.
That lens would actually provide shallower depth of field and better low-light performance on a D600 than your 17-50 mm f/2.8 on a DX camera. If you merely want to replicate on FX your existing DX performance you could opt for a slower lens, such as Nikon’s own 24-85 mm f/3.5-4.5 VR. That way you’d gain a 24 mm wide-angle, which I’d find very attractive (though probably not attractive enough to outweigh the Tamron’s cheaper price and greater speed and constant aperture and likely better image quality).
I have been looking at upgrading to Full Frame tentatively and was wondering what I would replace my Tammy 17-50 with to get same results, asking around on various forums the Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Lens comes back with strong recommendations.
I shoot Canon so not sure how it fits in with the FX format, on the canon it is very close in terms of the focal range that it covers and the reviews I have seen look very strong ![]()
Good Luck
I had the tamron 17-50 2.8 for my D90. I hated selling that as much as the body! Such a nice DX combo.
Now I have the Nikon 24-70 2.8, and it's even sweeter. If budget isn't an issue, spend as much on the lens as you have on the body and pick up the best short zoom you can get for a Nikon - the 24-70 ... it really is great.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.












