Tamron lens?

[JenPena]

At the risk of starting a brand debate, I am wondering about a new lens...

I'm working with a D70 and keep getting asked to do formal portraits. I have the lens the kit came with, and I have a 50mm f/1.8, but that wouldn't work for weddings when I need to move around. My question is, should I pick up the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, which I can afford now and use now, or wait until (or if) I can afford the Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 someday down the road? I hate taking shots with the less sharp lens I got with the kit, but I don't want to put down $400 for a lens I will wish I hadn't bothered with. Anyone have any experience with this or know of another lens that might be more worth my dollar? I'm a portrait and special event newbie photog and now have a couple of weddings in the near future to shoot. Can anyone offer advice?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

If you don't want to spend that much, get the Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8. It's unbelievably sharp. Much sharper than your kit lens. I've got it in my bag and love it. It's my sharpest lens nexy to my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8.

 

[MPowerM3]

While I am a Canon guy, I have been eyeing ""said"" cheaper branded lens with a 2.8 aperature for the sure fact that there hundreds of dollars cheaper. When talking a few friends about it, many have considered ""said"" cheaper brands, however went with Canon/Nikon cause there rich, simply put. If you have the money, pony up, if not, a 2.8 is a 2.8 right? Same/similar technology in the coating on the lens. However, I think for a wedding when your more up close, you might something to get alittle closer, maybe not, Im not a wedding photographer, just giving my 2 cents on lens manufactors (they wouldnt be in busneiss if they sucked).

 

[Big Mike]

I recommend getting a lens with a constant maximum aperture of F2.8...it really makes a big difference compared to the kit lens...especially in lower light situations.

I recently replaced my kit lens (Canon) with a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8...and I'm very happy with it.

 

[fmw]

Don't get concerned about brand wars. Every manufacturer has different qualities of optics in their line. Even Nikon sells some junky lenses. Tamron is a respected brand and they have been making good lenses for a long time. Their macros are among the best in the business.

50mm is a little short in terms of perspective for head and shoulders portraiture. To get a pleasing perspective you would need to back up and do a lot of cropping. The 70-75mm area is about as short as you would want to go and a little longer wouldn't hurt. You want a little foreshortening in the perspective. It is the focal length of the lens and subject distance that determine perspective, not the amount of the frame that is filled (angle of view.)

 

[JD in Socal]

50mm is a little short in terms of perspective for head and shoulders portraiture. To get a pleasing perspective you would need to back up and do a lot of cropping. The 70-75mm area is about as short as you would want to go and a little longer wouldn't hurt.

Fred,

Are you talking in terms of 35mm equivalent?

thanks,

JD

 

[fmw]

Fred,

Are you talking in terms of 35mm equivalent?

thanks,

JD

I'm talking about the focal length of the lens. Doesn't matter whether it's mounted to a medium format, 35mm or digital camera. Perspective is a function of subject distance primarily, focal length secondarily, not the size of the frame. You can't foreshorten perspective by cropping. You can foreshorten it by backing up from the subject and then filling your frame with a longer lens rather than using a shorter subject distance to fill the frame. If you move closer to the subject in order to fill the frame, you go in the wrong direction for portrait perspective.

I like lenses in the 80-180mm range personally for head and shoulder portraits, regardless of camera format. I tend to adjust my lens choices within that range just to get a frame filling composition. With medium format, I tend to like my 150mm lens which is at the long end of the range. With a digital I tend to like the 85 or 90mm focal length. My favorite 35mm portrait lens was always the 105mm f2.5 Nikkor.

No hard and fast rules, understand. This would be basic photography 101. A lot of great portraitists have used wide angle lenses up close and I know a couple of fashion photographers with big studios because they won't use anything shorter than 300mm.

 

[JD in Socal]

Fred,

That makes perfect sense and is a very good point. Thanks for the reply.

JD

 

[ZyxKor]

I just got the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 yesterday. I've been using my 50mm F1.8 for the band photography I do. I wanted the ability to zoom a bit becuase it's hard to move alot in a crowded bar and I also wanted low light. I went with the Tamron over the Canon for price plus the reviews of the Tamron were very good. I was happily surprised that it looks good and seems to have really good build quality. I haven't been able to take many pictures with it yet. I'll do that this weekend and post them here.