Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 ???

[gcoop3]

I wanted to buy a decent portrait lens for my D100, but when I found out how much the Nikon 17-55 mm cost I almost had a heart attack. So I ventured out to find something cheaper...
question is this: Do you think the Tamron 17-50 will take good portraits ( I know it is not a Nikon) for the $$ Or should I just save up and buy the NiKon.

I am not a professional, just a hobbyist who is about to have his first child and I wanted to take all the portraits I could without going to a pro.

Thanks

[badpickev]

the tamron 17-50 f2.8 will take good pics. its plenty sharp and should work well for you. if you can test it before you buy it do so.

[cyclohexane]

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.

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.

[foozen]

Sorry to hijack but may help you. I have a Canon 350d (who hasn't at some point) and love to take portrait shots. I'm quite new to the field but what is the best portrait lens for the Canon?

[gcoop3]

Badpickev ...Thanks for helping me on the vote of confidence for theTamron

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by foozen

Sorry to hijack but may help you. I have a Canon 350d (who hasn't at some point) and love to take portrait shots. I'm quite new to the field but what is the best portrait lens for the Canon?

Hi foozen, there are many Canon lenses that will take a decent portrait, the EF85F1.2L II however is regarded by Canon (and many others) as their 'definitive portraiture lens'...

Maybe a nice post to make in the Canon Forum ??



...€0.02...

Kindest regards,

Max@Home

[gcoop3]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

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.



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.

Thaks for the advice and the other choices as well, I am going to look into them also.

Thanks

[Highpockets]

I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and I think it is excellent, especially for the price. It is much lighter than the Nikon but still well built. I did quite a bit of research before I bought the lens, so I know you can find a lot of reviews. Almost everything I saw was positive, and I am very satisfied.

[stdon]

Here's one that slides under the radar that I would look into before a Tamron. A Nikon 28-105D. At 3.5-4.5 maybe not as fast as the Tamron but IMO better built, more usable for portraits, at 1.2 has a decent macro function and much less expensive. I know several photographers who this lens for about everything and their images sell.

For me this focal range is much more usable for portraits than 17-50. I bought a Tokina 16-50 which I like very much but use it very seldom and when portraits are concerned never and sold it for a 17-35. When I do though on goes the 28-70 or 70-200.

I can personally vouch for the 28-105D as I had one and used it a lot. I gave it to a friend starting out who needed something in that range when I got the 28-70.

Good luck,
Don

[angelsfort]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

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

would it make sense to have BOTH of these lenses?? I love the price on the first one, and the second one sounds like it's a great portrait lens. I might go ahead and get the 50mm (just over $100?? great deal!) and then save a bit and then get the other one too... or is that just being redundant? Will they both do the same job?

[cyclohexane]

would it make sense to have BOTH of these lenses??

Yes.

I used to use both of them; the different focal lengths give you different looks, allow for different working distances with your subjects, etc. I ended up getting rid of the 50mm f/1.8 because I didn't use it enough, but portraits are no longer anywhere near my primary focus. If I was shooting portraits again I'd probably have both.

Right now I just have the much more expensive 85mm f/1.4D (over the 85mm f/1.8D), but I do keep a 50mm f/1.4 AIS manual focus lens for my old film bodies.

[angelsfort]

Well WOO HOO! That's all I needed! (for someone to validate my NEED to get more lenses!! LOL I'm off to B&H now! After a brief stop at Amazon...)

[cyclohexane]

If I didn't shoot sports and news, I'd probably have the following kit:

A body (duh)

Some kind of zoom that has lengths wider than 24mm

35mm
50mm
85mm

The last three would be fast primes- as fast I could afford.

Right now, the way I shoot I can't justify keeping a 35mm or 50mm prime. Then again, I also can't justify keeping three film bodies (two 35mm, one 120), but one of them has a sort of sentimental/collector value to me...

[One on one]

First of all, congratulations on the upcoming birth of your child. I have 2 children 6 and 9 years old and have been photographing them from day one. Initially with a film SLR and now with a digital SLR. My recommendation is to get yourself a 50mm 1.4 to start out. That's all that you'll need for awhile. The F1.4 makes it easier to take natural light photos of your child. You can bypass using the flash and get much more natural looking photos. It's still my prefered lens when taking around the house photos of the kids. The fixed focal length will also force you to move to compose your shot instead of sitting back and zooming away. The problem with most zooms is that their maximum aperature is 2.8, 3.5, 4.0 even 4.5. That's the difference between being able to hand hold at a lower ISO or being forced to use the on camera flash. After awhile the 85 F1.8 will make a great second lens when your child starts to get more active.

[ulrauko]

Originally Posted by angelsfort

would it make sense to have BOTH of these lenses?? I love the price on the first one, and the second one sounds like it's a great portrait lens. I might go ahead and get the 50mm (just over $100?? great deal!) and then save a bit and then get the other one too... or is that just being redundant? Will they both do the same job?

want an advice - get 50/1.4 version. it costs more, but it's a very good lens, much better than the cheapey 1.8.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by angelsfort

would it make sense to have BOTH of these lenses?? I love the price on the first one, and the second one sounds like it's a great portrait lens. I might go ahead and get the 50mm (just over $100?? great deal!) and then save a bit and then get the other one too... or is that just being redundant? Will they both do the same job?

Yes it makes sense, I also have a 50mm and a 85mm, the first is great for General Purpose in the house, the second you will love for more dedicated portrait work and for outside.

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home