17-55 or 28-70 for portrait work?

F-Stop

F-Stop

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,124
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
My wife was un-pleased with her Tammy 17-50mm 2.8, so is in the market for another portrait work lens. She usually shoots with primes, and liked the reach of the Tammy, but said she had focus issues with it. (I inherited the lens and love it lol).

Anyone have experience with both and which would you use for children's portrait work? Non-studio. All on location shoots.

Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 or the Nikon 28-70mm 2.8? (not looking at spending the extra cash on 4 more mm).

Thanks guys.
 
Could I throw another suggestion into the ring? What about a 70-200 VR, it's a superb portrait lens and for location shoots of kids it would allow you more working distance at the long end as well...
 
It is a tad on the large side :lol: The 17-55 is a cracking lens, but I would have though it would be just a wee bit short for photographing kids, but if your wife is comfortable with that range then :thumbs:

The only thing is it's quite a bit heavier than the Tamron and you might be disappointed with the difference in iq given that it's three times the price. Personally I don't regret upgrading from the Tamron to the Nikon, but as they say over by, your mileage may vary....
 
If you're in that price bracket, have a look and see if you can find the Nikon 35-70/2.8. It will give better range, for portrait, than the 17-55. This lens has been discontinued, but you may find one around if you look, or get it 2nd hand :shrug:
 
Not an area I do much (if any!) work in, but I think you'll be wanting 70mm up to 105mm ideally.

50-55mm isn't an ideal portrait length, regardless of the lens used.

Wail makes a very good suggestion above!
 
I hve the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and it is very sharp, I also have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8, this one has focus issues, so I can imagine how frustrating this is for your wife. Saying that though, if used in m/f, it is just as sharp as the other lens.
My first suggestion would be to try another Tamron ( cheaper option) they dont all have focus problems, or go for a Nikon 85mm or Nikon 28-70 f2.8, if you have the cash!
Allan
 
Yup. All locational shoots, so a faster lens would probably be best suited.

I think she's decided on the 17-55 though. I showed her 28 on the short end with another lens and it wasn't quite wide enough for her. Guess I should have just done that to begin with. :D
 
I'd go for the 28-70, there isn't much in it between that and the new 24-70 IMO.
 
allanm said:
also have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8, this one has focus issues, so I can imagine how frustrating this is for your wife.
Click to expand...

Hi Allan

Intro2020 should be able to sort this for you. My lens is very sharp, but Krazy_Horse here has the 28-75 and his is no where near as sharp as mine. He came over and we shot them both on my D700 and his D200 and his lens was worse than mine @ f/5.6 than my lens @ f/2.8.

IIRC Krazy_Horse got it fixed cheaply, might be worth PM'ing him?
 
dellipher said:
Is it locational work, rather than studio that the lens is used for? And is that why the 2.8 is the most important bit?

Im only asking cos in the studio we use [both myself and diddydave] the Nikon 18-70mm lens. Superb lens for the money.
Click to expand...




Boring maybe, but...

:agree::agree::agree::agree::agree:

Fab focal length for any studio, & fab lens for the price - we do 30x40" canvasses from this lens with confidence every time

Best value lens on the market IMHO :clap:

DD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top