WHICH TO BUY???

lookhartphotography · Feb 9, 2009

Ok.... so the time is getting closer to get rid of the old and in with the new! So I am either going to buy a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 OR a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8! Which one would you buy and why? I do lots of weddings, engagements, family and children. I love candids and usually don't have the best lighting conditions! i have a D300 too which needs a good lens to work to its full capacity

AlexColeman · Feb 9, 2009

It will all depend on what focal length you are lacking in.

elemental · Feb 9, 2009

If you do "lots of weddings, engagements, family and children," it seems like you should have a pretty good idea of what focal lengths you're using and for what purposes. It seems strange that someone who is experienced in all of these shooting scenarios would be comparing two lenses are similar in everything except focal length.

That said, it would help to know what lenses you are currently using and what your "go-to" setups are (focal length, light level, etc.).

lookhartphotography · Feb 9, 2009

i do have a 18-200 and a 28-200 with f/3.4 as the lowest setting. i never said that i was completely knowledgeable in this area of the equipment. these lenses have been ok for now and I am just learning as I go with this hobby. I was able to borrow a friends lens that was a 70-200 and liked it but was also told to get the 17-55. I was just looking for some advice.

JerryPH · Feb 10, 2009

lookhartphotography said:
Ok.... so the time is getting closer to get rid of the old and in with the new! So I am either going to buy a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 OR a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8! Which one would you buy and why? I do lots of weddings, engagements, family and children. I love candids and usually don't have the best lighting conditions! i have a D300 too which needs a good lens to work to its full capacity

Which do YOU need, no one here can tell you this, only you could possibly know that. For a wedding photographer, it is simple, you need both focal ranges, no doubts about that.

I would suggest you swap the 17-55 to the Sigma 18-50, though... at 1/3rd the price, it beat the Nikkor 17-55 in 3 independant magazine shootouts and won 3 out of 3 and it has a free 3:1 macro mode, something that the 17-55 doesn't even have. That is a no brainer.

Samriel · Feb 10, 2009

JerryPH said:
I would suggest you swap the 17-55 to the Sigma 18-50, though... at 1/3rd the price, it beat the Nikkor 17-55 in 3 independant magazine shootouts and won 3 out of 3 and it has a free 3:1 macro mode, something that the 17-55 doesn't even have. That is a no brainer.

Although this is true, the Nikkor has one advantage: the built quality is better than the Sigma, and there are no sample variations. But if that doesn't matter to you much, I'd recommend going with the Sigma or the Tamron. The Tamron has gotten many good reviews on the net (by review sites, as well as independent users) favoring it to the Sigma, but I personally think the real difference is so small it doesn't really matter. The Sigma does have the bonus "Macro" mode, as Jerry mentioned.
I wouldn't get the Nikkor 17-55mm though, as it is quite expensive for a DX lens, and you seem like someone who might upgrade to a D700 or something else FX in the future. So, if I were you, I'd get either the the Sigma or the Tamron, and wait if Nikon brings out a new 70-200mm f2.8 (rumors about this have been going around for a while). Saves you a lot of money while giving you a good and usable lens.

lookhartphotography · Feb 10, 2009

thank you all so much for your help. you saved me some money in the end too when I get the lenses. I don't know much about lenses and what to get so I really appreciate it!

blash · Feb 11, 2009

I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask you to research the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens, considering the fact that you said you were mostly interested in portraiture but was subject to the available light conditions. If 50mm is too short for you, then look at either the 85mm f/1.4 or the 85mm f/1.8 depending on your budget.

I don't see why a wedding photographer needs macro (in regards to the Sigma) more than anything else - I've seen a few shots here and there (rings on the invitation etc.) but the primes above will lend to many more shots than a macro will, furthermore most of the macro shots can be completed satisfactorily with a telephoto at the appropriate range and set-up; it's not as convenient, but it saves ya a heck of a lot of money in the beginning (keep in mind, what matters is that your client is satisfied with the pictures, not you, and so long as the image is immediately striking, I seriously doubt the bride is going to be concerned with distortion etc. This is why fisheyes (after non-rectilinear correction) have been making a resurgence of sorts in wedding photography, see here and scroll down a bit to the group shots: Fisheye-Hemi) If money is no object or you are doing this professionally, you should have a dedicated macro lens anyways.

Don't forget the flash, considering the 200mm zoom max you should be looking at (I guess) a SB-900 although that might be overkill (SB-900s are pro but crazy expensive, but they're Nikon's flash that covers that 200mm focal range).