My next wedding lens , advice please on f2.8

Desmond

After Saturday's wedding in a dark-ish hall and a cloudy day I have decided to go with suggestions that I get a faster lens with a smaller range than my 18-200VR . I tried the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for a while but it just didn't go wide enough . I ended up using the 18-200vr for the rest of the shoot and there were a few shaky images . The Nikon 17-50 f2.8 [ I might get a few 17's and 18's wrong here adjust numbers accordingly ] was suggested but at NZ$2600 is a bit much compared to the equivalent Sigma and tamron options at around NZ$600 -900 . There is another lens that appears to be quite highly spoken of , the tamron 17-70 2.8-4.5 which is a very nice range but i would prefer a fixed aperture .
Can anyone tell me which is better out of the 3rd party lenses in the 17-55 mm approximate range ? Obviously if a 17-70 2.8 is out there that is better that would be ideal . I did some searching on the internet and the tamron and Sigma's seem to have gotten good reviews .

z_28

I think Tamron 17-50/2.8 is the best "bargain" choice for not-full flame cameras.

Desmond

I just read some reviews on"photozone" and this lens does seem to outperform the sigma equivalent .

Mike02

Desmond wrote:

I just read some reviews on"photozone" and this lens does seem to outperform the sigma equivalent .

Get what you need, lens comparisons dont matter, so long as it lets you get 'the shot'.

Desmond

If two lenses are similar price and one out-performs the other in quality and distortion levels then I can't see why just getting the shot makes any logical sense when comparing the two can end up in getting superior shots .

Seymore

Well Desmond... I see you have one prime, but is another prime an option? I have, and find the 85/1.8 a really fast sweeeet lens. And for <$300, quite a good deal. Just something to consider...<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/mwink.gif" border="0" alt="" >

mr peas

I suggest going to a store in which has the lens you want to buy and try it out for yourself. Compare it to the other lenses you wish to buy and make a decision that way. Though asking others for their opinions help, a true critic has to have both lenses to make a good assumption on its quality of images and build, otherwise its a bit much like speculation.

For ex, a Canon 16-35 f2.8L vs. a Tamron 17-35 f2.8-3.5ish?. The best way to tell which one is better is to have tried both lenses yourself if not have someone who has the lens and ask them to do a several shots and compare them to the other lens' sample shots. That will eliminate any guesswork.

Maybe even a certain retailer will take back a lens if you dont feel that it was up to your standards, thats one way to make sure you dont buy the one you dont want.

digismile

Any chance of renting a lens?

I have often rented equipment when I wasn't in a position to purchase. Daily rates can be in the $20-$30 range depending on the lens. This is what I did before I purchased my 24-70L f/2.8.

Desmond

Hmm , I hadn't considered renting but it would be nice to own the lens and know it is in working condition rather . The city I am in doesn't have an huge camera dealers though there is a shop about 1 1/2 hours away in Auckland , www.aucklandcamera.com , which does have a reasonable range of lenses . The thing is , these shops might have , say , a Sigma 18-50 for NZ$900 , you can go in and try it out maybe , but then there are the "internet importers " that can supply the same lens within a week for about $600 . A substantial difference though a it scary when you think about a warranty , though they say it has a 1 year warranty ...
I would probably also rather go for a wider fast prime than 50mm instead of 85mm for the moment .
I'm starting to lean more toward the tamron 17-50 2.8 right now ....