Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by J.Bat, Nov 6, 2008.
Which is better? I shoot mainly portraits and wedding.
Any help would be awesome.
For portraits and wedding, I would say the 28-75. It can reach further, which means you don't have to stand as close to your subjects. The only reason you would need the 17-50 is for wide shots, which I don't believe you'd be doing when shooting portraits and wedding. Now, I don't know a thing about these lenses. I am basing all of this off the focal lengths.
Protraits and weddings?? I'll not go there because I already know where it is going to end, but instead direct you to do a little googling on your own to find that answer.
If it is just for Portraits, I prefer the 28-75mm range. I like the result of the longer focal length on portraits. Based on what I saw, my next lens purchase .... most likely is going to be 85 F/1.8 or something similar (Mainly for portraits)
As for wedding..... sorry, I really have no idea.
The big question is whether you are shooting full frame or with a 1.5/1.6 sensor. With full frame it is the first. With the 1.5 factor it is the second.
I wouldn't be satisfied to shoot a wedding with a 28-75mm on a crop body...I like having a wider angle available. After all, you can always crop an image if needed, but you can't really add what's not there.
Most wedding photographers need a wider angle so that they can capture more people in a smaller area... however, if minimal distortion is your need, 70-200 is what you need for proper formals and portraits for minimal "chipmunk cheek" and less of that "I look fatter" look.
That's great advice from Jerry...and that's why I carry two bodies while shooting a wedding. Most of the time, one body has a 17-50mm lens and the other has a 70-200mm lens.
I won't rule on your application, because I don't do that kind of work. I will say that the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is my walkabout lens and a wonderful piece of glass. On my 30D (1.6X crop), it does nice portrait work, but is a bit on the short end for that.
Yes, I find a 28mm (35mm equivalent) is needed for some group and head table shots. On a crop body a 28mm is more like a 42mm which is not sufficiently wide for a lot of shots.
Sorry, bumping an older thread but I had the same question and was doing some back searching.
I've been debating between the 17-50 and the 28-75. I understand the need for a wide angle being one of the reasons people like the 17-50, but the reason I like the 28-75 is the longer focal range. I already have 10-22 to cover the wide angles. I know I'd have to change lenses when I'd need one or the other.
I've read that an ideal focal range for portraits is 85-105 (closer to 85). So on a crop, that would be 50-70, a range that the 17-50 just barely touches on.
Arg...so many choices.
I went through this same thing and ended up buying the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. My biggest worry was doing a wedding with a big dress/train that you might need the wider end to get it all. Not to mention fitting many people into a frame while being relatively close to them. If I was only doing portraits I'd go for the 28-75 but think that 28 might not be wide enough for a lot of wedding shots on a crop body.
Ideally it would be nice at a wedding to have 2 bodies with the 17-50 on one and something like a Tamron 90mm / Nikon 85mm or some other longer prime attached on the second body.
Separate names with a comma.