More lens questions

[Jeff_Green]

I need to stop asking questions about lenses and just buy one already.

I've been debating over whether to get a 17-70 (ish) length lens or a 70-200 (ish) lens. I will primarily be using it for weddings. My initial thought was to buy a 17-70ish lens and rent the 70-200 lens since it is more expensive.

All of that to get to this...

I will probably either go with a Tamron or Sigma. I told myself long ago that I would only have nikkor on my nikon, but don't know if I can swing the more than double the price...

I have been thinking about Tamron but it seems that there are some people who have focusing problems with them occassionally. I want to ask the people here, instead of strangers reviews on their opinions on both Sigma and Tamron lenses. I value the opinions of the members of this forum because I see your work and know this is an honest forum.

Thanks in advance.
Jeff

[RightAngle]

I have used a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and 28-75 2.8 on my canon stuff. The 28-75 2.8 was near L sharpness but was a little lacking in color and contrast. The 17-50 however is definitely not the sharpest and shares the 28-75s problem with color and contrast. Neither are exactly brilliant with build quality either.

With that said they served me well for quite some time and never had too much of a problem with them.

However I think for weddings and an all around lens I would think a 70-200 would be more useful. I don't have experience with any 3rd party 70-200 lens though. I would just say that you can only get so close but you can almost always back up.

[LDB]

I don't shoot weddings so my comments are more questioning than answering but maybe will at least add to the thought process. Based on the few weddings I've been to it would seem a 70-200 would be too long for a lot of the shots other than a few in the auditorium during the ceremony and I guess the portrait stuff when set to around 70. The 17-70 would seem better suited to the reception candids and the portraits but would be short for some auditorium shots. I don't know what brand camera but for Nikon there's the 24-120 that would seem to offer a possibly better range?

[toverman]

For weddings, my opinion is you'll need to cover both focal lengths (not either/or, although I know how my budget doesn't agree). For outdoor stuff, I've gotten away with nothing wider than 28 (for a 1.6x crop), but there are times I wish I had at least 17 or 24 mm to work with. And 70-200 is a standard for coverage, too!

Being a lens snob and a little hard-headed, I only go with the manufacturer-made lenses. Although the Sigma or Tamron lens you buy now might work perfectly fine with your cameras now, a little insurance for the future is to go with the Nikons.

[groovyone]

I used a 70-210 a lot when I shot a wedding to isolate people better, and to shoot the couple at the altar from a distance. It allowed me to shoot 'in the moment' action at a distance. I wasn't the primary photographer though.

Distance shot:

Once the wedding moved to the indoor part of the reception, I switched to a 28-75 f2.8. It was a tightly packed area, so I couldn't back up very far without getting people in the way of the shot.

Wider shot:

(niether shot is great, just two quick examples I grabbed)

I guess my answer is, get both if you can.

[David Whatley]

What is your back up camera? I ask because a lens wont do a lot of good if you dont have a spare body and something happens. I would stay on the short side. I have a Sigma 17-70 2.8 that I am happy with.

[Spec A!]

Jeff don't feel bad- I used to be Nikkor snob too. Things change, I no longer can afford let alone justify the costs so I got the Sigma 10-20 for my ultra wide. It's my first 3rd party lens I've ever owned and it is outstanding. Seriously happy with the quality I get from it.
When I used to run a full service camera store back in the early 90's- of the big three 3rd party lenses- Tamron always ranked 3rd. Sigma and Tokina would trade places for 1st and 2nd depending on years and their line up. Sigma's always seemed to be the favorite among most of my Pro customers that used them. The probably have the largest range of lenses too which I think helps- they make alot of glass.

This all being said, I do think Tokina's are worth a look. They definitely have great build quality over Tamron and I'm pretty sure I've read some great positive opinions on their 17-50 (ish) f2.8 lens here on the forums.

[Jeff_Green]

Okay, I have almost twisted my own arm to buying the Sigma 70-200 2.8 DG Macro HSMII.
Anyone have experience with this one... think I'll be satisfied with it? From the couple reviews I have read it seems to be a pretty good lens, especially for $800.

http://www.adorama.com/SG70200DNKAF.html

[Titaniumblade]

Jeff I have heard great things about that lens! I think you will be very happy with it and the range it provides.

At the Glamour Shoot, I was shooting with the 70-200 L IS 2.8, I have to say it was perfect even as close as we were in the studio.

Good Luck!

[Dennis_H]

Jeff,

I have a Sigma 17-70 and 70-200. They are both very good lenses. the 17-70 is only 2.8 at 17 ~ 25 or so. It is 4 or 4.5 at 70. My only concern would be that you might want IS (or VR since you're Nikon) for weddings. I shoot primarily outdoor kids sports and love my lenses for that, but low lit churches could be an issue.

That 70-200 is very sharp and I love the lens.

Dennis

[dtown]

If you can't flash then I think you'll be happier with the Sigma 18-50 ($450) or Tamron 17-50 ($420). Tokina has the 16-50 but it is $640 so hard to compare to what you already have in mind.

Rent the long lens and see if you can live without VR. I'd lean towards the Nikon 80-200 but you'll want to see if the focus speed is an issue. Optically it is a very nice lens and should be considered, it is $100-150 more and in stock while the Sigma looks to be on back-order.

[Jeff_Green]

I can always rent the Nikon 80-200 VR because I will be shooting from the back of the chapel and would like to have the ability to get close. I will hopefully be using two Nikon bodies, one with my new lens and the other with whichever lens I need to rent.

[Wil_Bloodworth]

Originally Posted by Jeff_Green

Okay, I have almost twisted my own arm to buying the Sigma 70-200 2.8 DG Macro HSMII.
Anyone have experience with this one... think I'll be satisfied with it? From the couple reviews I have read it seems to be a pretty good lens, especially for $800.

http://www.adorama.com/SG70200DNKAF.html

Jeff,

I bought this lens and sent it back. But wait! It's an awesome lens and is EXTREMELY fast at focusing. I really hated the fact that the tripod mount had virtually ZERO space between the lens and the mount. You can't carry the lens by the mount because you can't fit your fingers between there. I found it cumbersome and it also affected my zooming because I would twist the zoom ring and eventually slam into the tripod mount with my fingers.

The tripod mount is very easily removable as it just clips on and off. I tried that for a few days but two things made me return it. One... it just FEELS cheap. It seems REALLY small and light compared to the Nikon. And two... no VR.

Those things are very picky... the lens is very nice otherwise. I thought it would be almost identical to the 120-300mm f/2.8 quality... which I love. It's just not. Dunno.

If I had to have a backup... that would definitely be the one I would buy.

- Wil

[CaptainTom]

You won't find a better quality lens for $800. The Sigma is very substantial.
I owned the predecessor to the Macro lens (which is reportedly better) and the only reason I moved away was because I could finally afford the IS.

[Wil_Bloodworth]

Oh, if you're primarily using the 70-200 for weddings, you'll want the VR.

- Wil