Should I rent the Nikon or Tamron 70-200 2.8 for a friends wedding

[jcblitz]

I'll be attending my friends indoor, banquet hall wedding in a few weeks and I wanted to rent a sharp lens. I tend to spend most of my time at friends weddings (and parties, and everything else) taking pictures. I currently have a Nikon D90, 50mm 1.8, and the 18-200 VR. The 18-200 is a very versatile lens but isn't very sharp. So I've decided these are the two contenders for renting:

• Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR ($91)
• Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 ($49)

The rental price isn't an issue, but if I decided I really loved shooting with a 70-200 2.8, I'd buy the Tamron (I found it for $670), but the Nikon is way to pricey for me ($1800).

So the question is, do you think it's worth it having the higher quality Nikon to shoot with that day, or going with the Tamron which I'm more likely to purchase.

edit: Actually, while re-reading this before submitting, I think I answered my own question. I think I'm going to rent the Nikon and if I really enjoyed it, just rent the Tamron and play around with it to see how it matches up, then buy one if I like that as well. But still curious on others thoughts.

 

[JerryPH]

Without going into the pros and cons of an inexperienced amateur shooting a wedding... there is a reason why 90% of all Nikon wedding shooters use a Nikkor 70-200 and graciously leave it at that.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

If it's a wedding, the 17-55 might be more useful

 

[Josh220]

I'd say go for the Nikon, but since you already decided that you will purchase the Tamron you may want to just rent the Tamron. If you use the Nikon, then later purchase the Tamron, I have a feeling you will be disappointed. If you use the Tamron, you'll be able to decide if you really want it or not. Just my 2 cents.

 

[JerryPH]

If it's a wedding, the 17-55 might be more useful

Yuppers. Unless one wants to do a lot of shooting from a distance in the church or candids at the reception. Distance is good under those circumstances... and also important when you want to stay out of the hired pro's way.

 

[jcblitz]

If it's a wedding, the 17-55 might be more useful

Yuppers. Unless one wants to do a lot of shooting from a distance in the church or candids at the reception. Distance is good under those circumstances... and also important when you want to stay out of the hired pro's way.

I've gone through the last 2 weddings I was at and the majority of my shots were at 70mm+ so that's why I'm going with that distance. Plus my goal is to take candid shots, I'm by no means "shooting" the wedding.

 

[Tiberius47]

I shot a wedding with the Tammy once. it worked okay. A nice lens to own. However, if you can afford either lens to rent, go for the one that has the best optical quality.