A&P Which Tamron f/2.8 lens?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Redliner7, Sep 20, 2006.

  1. Redliner7

    Redliner7 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know you guys love the 28-75mm F2.8, and I was about to get that, when I noticed the new Tamron 17-50mm...so.....
    Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 or 28-75mm F/2.8 for Nikon D70...

    I'm getting it to shoot a wedding (for fun, not pay!) Should I go for the long-end or wide-end? I'm thinking 17-50mm since stepping towards the subject solves the issue of the long-end...

    Advice plz.
     
  2. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,485
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    17-50 on the 1.5x body

    You'll probably also want to use a longer lens in addition to the wide angle zoom, ie 70-200 f/2.8 VR
     
  3. Airpoppoff

    Airpoppoff Vodka > Racing F1

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kirkland, Seattle, Wa
  4. Redliner7

    Redliner7 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    0
    Coo - thx.

    I have an older Nikon 70-210 4-5.6 for the longer stuff...it's no 70-200 F/2.8 but, what the hell. ISO1600 FTW :p
     
  5. CornUponCob

    CornUponCob Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    15,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 17-50 is tamron's "SP" line. That lens is regarded as having better IQ than the 28-75 2.8. I think it costs about $100 more. There is said to be an issue of focus field curvature with the lens.

    I have the 28-75, and on my 30D I hate shooting it wide open. I usually stop it down to at least f4, by f5.6 it's very sharp. Focuses pretty quickly and accurately. Almost never hunts back and forth. With the 580ex IR assist beam it almost never misses even in a pitch black room. For weddings I found it to be just barely long enough for the reception. For the price the 28-75 is a great choice. I can't think of anything better (I've also tried the sigma 24-70 2.8.... it sucked, stay away, the tamron is way better).
     
  6. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,285
    Likes Received:
    1
    couldn't have said it better myself!

    you'll definitely like the 12-24 better at f/4 than you would with the 17-50 at f/2.8
     
  7. Redliner7

    Redliner7 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    0
    12-24 Nikon? Man -- what's the price on that sucka?
     
  8. cftofu2k

    cftofu2k OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,949
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    California
    28-75 is cool but not wide enough.. which is why i want the 12-24 as my next lens :)
     
  9. Redliner7

    Redliner7 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    0
    So being the noob that I am (and being cheap as I can possibly be)...

    my choice is now a Tokina 12-24 f/4 or Tarmon 17-50mm f/2.8...I guess the 28-75 isn't wide enough, and I kinda saw that myself. But man, am I going for such a short focal range on the 12-24...

    you bastards, i had this down 2 to lenses. Now I'm down to 2 different lenses! Why would the 12-24 be good at weddings, if someone can explain to this poor noob.
     
  10. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,285
    Likes Received:
    1
    the 12-24 Nikon is around $899-999 but the Tokina is around $500. I love my Tokina and use it more than any other lens.

    the 12-24 would be best for group shots because you don't have to stand so far back. great for table group shots, dance floor, etc., where you need more room in frame. I shot my first wedding with my tokina on one body and my 70-300 on the other. 70-300 was used to not get in everyone's way during ceremony and as they were walking towards/away from me.

    12-24 was used for what I mentioned above.
     
  11. NSX

    NSX OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,961
    Likes Received:
    248
    Location:
    la la land
    Get both the Tamron 17-50 and the 28-75.

    28-75 = 42-112mm in 1.5 crop sensor.

    You'll get good range with those 2 lenses and both are f2.8 to boot!
     
  12. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,485
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    Throw a few hundred dollars at a homeless and waste more money while you're at it.

    There's no point in buying these two lenses and having the focal length overlap. Better off going with a 17-50 / 70-200 combo.
     
  13. NSX

    NSX OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,961
    Likes Received:
    248
    Location:
    la la land
    You're bitchin' about an 8mm overlap?! :squint:
     
  14. MojoDojo

    MojoDojo New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    So.Cal, CA
    I agree with Derrict on this. Plus that is awhole lot more than just 8mm of overlap.
     
  15. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,485
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    Your math is way off

    You're overlapping 28mm-50mm

    I wasn't born in this country and I can do better math than you :wtc:
     

Share This Page