View Single Post
Old 01-21-2008   #3 (permalink)
cyclohexane
F1 Camel
 
cyclohexane's Avatar
 
Location: Westwood
Posts: 4,744
cyclohexane is just really very very nicecyclohexane is just really very very nicecyclohexane is just really very very nicecyclohexane is just really very very nicecyclohexane is just really very very nicecyclohexane is just really very very nicecyclohexane is just really very very nice
CamelKarma: 838
Editing OK?: Ask first
Default Re: Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 ???

Thom has a pretty good review regarding it's use on Nikon cameras here.

If you're just doing portraits, why not the cheaper Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8? You won't need 17-28mm a lot for most traditional portraits of children.

The 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor and 85mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor are also good choices for portraits.

Quote:
Or should I just save up and buy the NiKon.
Usually I answer "Yes", but it's really up to you. When talking pro glass like the 17-55mm f/2.8, you're really paying for the build quality as compared to third party options, not optical quality.
__________________
-Michael
cyclohexane is online now   Reply With Quote