Recommend your fast wide zoom...

[LadyShutterBug]

I am looking at getting a 2.8 zoom for the around-and-about part of wedding photography-- i have a 1.4/50mm and a 1.4/30mm and find that i am constantly wishing i had something to use in lower light with zoom capability somewhere between these two lenses.

i have an 80-200mm/2.8 for the long church shots where i can't be up close... just need somethign more for action.

so...

what would you do?

i have been looking at the nikkor 28-70mm ($1400)... but that is a lot of money to spend when there are alternatives like the sigma 18-50mm ($409), and tamron 17-50mm ($450), tamron 28-75mm ($380).


i have nikkor, sigma, and tamron lenses in my collection. i'm just wondering in this particular case if the nikkor lens is $1000 better than the tamron. that $1000 would love to go toward another camera body if it could ;)

thoughts?

[venchka]

Hmmmmmmmm...if you have a 30/1.4 and a 50/1.4, then a 28-70 2.8 zoom seems redundant and slow. I like W I D E lenses. I really like my 17-35/2.8. Full frame of course. Don't leave home without it.

[LadyShutterBug]

Originally Posted by venchka

Hmmmmmmmm...if you have a 30/1.4 and a 50/1.4, then a 28-70 2.8 zoom seems redundant and slow. I like W I D E lenses. I really like my 17-35/2.8. Full frame of course. Don't leave home without it.

it may very well be redundant, but when you are photographing a wedding, convenience is key. i carry around a camera on a flash bracket w/zoom and a camera with one of the 1.4 lenses at all times when i'm shooting. if i've got the 50mm on and i need that 30mm, i can't run to the other side of the ballroom, switch lenses, and then go back to where the shot was. impossible. hence my predicament.

17-35 is just too wide for the way i shoot. i like to get the emotional intimate moments but remain unobtrusive. for that i need zoom.

[billbunton]

Your two options from Nikon are the 17-55/2.8 DX or the beast, the 28-70/2.8. Both are excellent lenses. My 28-70 is slightly "better" (sharpness about the same, contrast slightly better) than my 17-55. The beast is also a bit larger and heavier, and I think a bit more expensive. For people I prefer the 28-70, and if 28 is wide enough for you that would be my recommendation.

I have never used any of the third-party lenses, aside form the Sigma 30/1.4, so I can't comment on them. I have heard good things about the Tamron 28-75, but that's been mostly by people trying to sell me one :-)

[srwatters]

Beg, rent, or borrow the beast and you'll see why it is one of Nikon's must have pro lenses. You will have to pry mine from my dead cold hands. I also like the 17-35, but have never shot the 17-55, so I can't directly compare those two.

Face it. Good glass costs big dollars but lasts basically forever. IMHO of course.

[JPalmer]

honestly....if you want good low light success...you've already got the lenses.

Going from f1.4 to f2.8 in low light....AND adding the extra weight of a lens like the 24-70mm f2.8 will spell more trouble than you think.

A heavier lens...and losing a full stop of light will hurt you. You'll have less chance of getting a sharp low shutter speed photo.

Save yourself the money...get a second camera body for that other lens.

[LadyShutterBug]

honestly, i don't stop all the way down to 1.4 all that often... and that is generally working with an ISO of 100 or 200. there are situations (candlelight only)where you need every drop of light you can pull in but i don't find that to be the case too often.

i shot at a reception with my super beast (80-200 2.8 nikkor) the other day for a few minutes, and it was so nice to have that zoom capability.

how beasty is the 28-70?

[venchka]

Sell your two 1.4 primes. Buy the 28-70 and a second flash. Use flash whenever you need it.

Carry both 1.4 primes and the 80-200. Use all 3 as needed. Learn to change lenses quickly.

What Jason said.

And it's open up to 1.4.

[groovyone]

I have the KM 28-75 f2.8, which if I understand correctly the Tamron is a near exact copy in terms of performance. I am very happy with it! Hard to find such good performance in that price range. (especially for us KM/Sony people)

[Cope]

Originally Posted by groovyone

I have the KM 28-75 f2.8, which if I understand correctly the Tamron is a near exact copy in terms of performance. I am very happy with it! Hard to find such good performance in that price range. (especially for us KM/Sony people)

I hear nothing but good things about this lens from owners, no matter what mount. Another wide zoom to consider would be the 17-35 2.8-4, although 4 might be too slow for your weddings.

[LadyShutterBug]

Carry both 1.4 primes and the 80-200. Use all 3 as needed. Learn to change lenses quickly.

this is what i do... but you're either joking or missing my point ;) no "moment" at a wdding lasts long enough for a lens change. plus, you can't be making all that case-opening noise during a ceremony.


i may just go with the tamron for now and see how i like having that particular lens capability. if i am noticing that image quality is lacking and i am liking that range, i will just sell the tamron and get the beasty nikkor.

i have a tamron 11-18mm that i bought when i dabbled in real estate photography... but it has turned out to be a lot of fun for some wedding applications (linear venue shots, wider angle shots of ornate ballrooms and churches). i have been happy with the images and lens performance-- but i can definitely feel the difference in quality when it coems to the lens movement and "feel".

[venchka]

Is there something wrong with this lens for $500?

Nikon 35-70/2.8 AFD Nikkor Zoom Lens

[srwatters]

Do you like push-pull zooms that focus very slowly?

Tongue-in-cheek, but it's not one of nikon's better efforts if I recall correctly. It's best to check out Bjorn's lens reviews if you're unsure.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

He's pretty much an accepted expert on the subject of Nikon lenses. At least more so than Ken Rockwell

[jeffkohn]

The 35-70 is very sharp, as sharp or sharper as the 28-70 according to some. But it's not an AF-S lens, and the focal range is even more limited (particularly on a DSLR where 35mm is not at all wide).

[venchka]

In a 2 body system, with 30mm on one and 35-70 on the other, it seems workable. Sure, the lenses mentioned originally have a wider zoom range.

Yep, on these small sensor bodies, wide starts at 17mm.

I still think this whole exercise boils down to 2 zooms + flash on two bodies (pick a focal length range for the new zoom) and 2 1.4 lenses on 2 bodies for available light. The 2 zooms + flash may end up doing all the work.

AND...I wasn't aware that you needed an additional lens for shooting DURING the ceremony. That was/is frowned on in many churches. Sorry for the confusion. There aren't any DSLR body+lens systems that can compete with rangefinder or TLR cameras for silent, unobtrusive photoraphy of the actual wedding ceremony.