Weddings shots with Tamron 17-50 2.8

DesmondDesmond Registered Users Posts: 187 Major grins
edited April 23, 2007 in Weddings
My new favourite lens , the constant f2.8 was really worthwhile and it really focussed well in low light ! I took these of the bride getting ready with no flash , though the shop lighting was pretty good .
prep040.jpg







prep062.jpg
Nikon D80 , D50 , SB600 , SB800 , Nikon 18-200VR , Tamron 28-75 di 2.8 , Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 , Nikon 50mm 1.8 . Tamron 17-50 f2.8 , Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 .

Comments

  • Mike02Mike02 Registered Users Posts: 321 Major grins
    edited April 22, 2007
    Um, is that really you in the background? Very unprofessional, imo. Otherwise, the second picture looks alright, but the first one looks very tacky and unrefined :/.
    "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it."
    - Ansel Adams.
  • gluwatergluwater Registered Users Posts: 3,599 Major grins
    edited April 22, 2007
    Get closer and focus more on the subject. The first the selective color focuses on the photogapher and in the second the bride is barely in the frame at all. Plus if you get closer you will have less of the background in the shot.
    Nick
    SmugMug Technical Account Manager
    Travel = good. Woo, shooting!
    nickwphoto
  • DesmondDesmond Registered Users Posts: 187 Major grins
    edited April 22, 2007
    Wedding photography is not only about every shot having only the bride or groom in it with no background information . It is about memories of the day . These were two of about 800 shots , I included myself since I was doing it free for a close friend and it would probably be the only shot he has with me in it since i took pictures of everyone else . The pictures are to show what the lens can do and I liked the second one because it was a good example of the clarity of the lens .
    Nikon D80 , D50 , SB600 , SB800 , Nikon 18-200VR , Tamron 28-75 di 2.8 , Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 , Nikon 50mm 1.8 . Tamron 17-50 f2.8 , Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 .
  • urbanariesurbanaries Registered Users Posts: 2,690 Major grins
    edited April 22, 2007
    Desmond wrote:
    it would probably be the only shot he has with me in it since i took pictures of everyone else . The pictures are to show what the lens can do

    the first does not show what the lens can do, it shows what arbitrary selective coloring can do, which is....? headscratch.gif

    if you're a close friend and they want some pictures with you in them, either leave the color in or out, IMO.
    Canon 5D MkI
    50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
    ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited April 22, 2007
    Folks, this isn't the Whipping Post. lol3.gif
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • ShepsMomShepsMom Registered Users Posts: 4,319 Major grins
    edited April 22, 2007
    1st shot could be closer to the subject and i think it's a little dark. I like the second one, but i would crop right side more titely. But who am i to say? ne_nau.gif After all, it's what you like! :D
    Marina
    www.intruecolors.com
    Nikon D700 x2/D300
    Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
  • DesmondDesmond Registered Users Posts: 187 Major grins
    edited April 22, 2007
    wxwax wrote:
    Folks, this isn't the Whipping Post. lol3.gif

    I'm glad someone is onto it ! Geez , next time I will really go through my pictures more thoroughly before posting them because I've never visited such an aggressive forum ! Everyone seems to go for the jugular here [ almost everyone ] . If people would just read the posts first " This is what some pictures taken on the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 look like , it focuses well in low light and is nice and sharp [imo anyway ] " .
    Ok, I know the composition won't win any prizes , there is a big open space on the right of the second picture , nobody here would have themselves in the shot [ unless maybe they knew the couple ?] but that is not what the post is about is it ? I know advice is helpful and I appreciate good advice "on the topic at hand " but please read the text and think before you speak people !
    Nikon D80 , D50 , SB600 , SB800 , Nikon 18-200VR , Tamron 28-75 di 2.8 , Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 , Nikon 50mm 1.8 . Tamron 17-50 f2.8 , Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 .
  • gluwatergluwater Registered Users Posts: 3,599 Major grins
    edited April 23, 2007
    wxwax wrote:
    Folks, this isn't the Whipping Post. lol3.gif
    Sorry Sid. Nice shots!
    Nick
    SmugMug Technical Account Manager
    Travel = good. Woo, shooting!
    nickwphoto
  • kygardenkygarden Registered Users Posts: 1,060 Major grins
    edited April 23, 2007
    I've had that lens on my wish list. I'm so impressed with Tamron's 28-75, I'd be happy to trust them with the 17-50...so the next time I get a chance to buy the 17-50, I will. :) Looks like it's working out well for you. I've read good pro reviews too.
    https://www.thephotographyhobbyist.com/
  • urbanariesurbanaries Registered Users Posts: 2,690 Major grins
    edited April 23, 2007
    kygarden wrote:
    I've had that lens on my wish list. I'm so impressed with Tamron's 28-75, I'd be happy to trust them with the 17-50...so the next time I get a chance to buy the 17-50, I will. :) Looks like it's working out well for you. I've read good pro reviews too.

    It is definitely a cost-effective alternative to the Canon 17-55 IS, which is more than twice the cost of the Tamron.

    I am happy with the Tamron, but not jumping up and down over its sharpness. Definitely counting my pennies for that Canon, I'll let you guys fight over my Tamron when that day comes rolleyes1.gif
    Canon 5D MkI
    50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
    ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
  • kygardenkygarden Registered Users Posts: 1,060 Major grins
    edited April 23, 2007
    urbanaries wrote:
    It is definitely a cost-effective alternative to the Canon 17-55 IS, which is more than twice the cost of the Tamron.

    I am happy with the Tamron, but not jumping up and down over its sharpness. Definitely counting my pennies for that Canon, I'll let you guys fight over my Tamron when that day comes rolleyes1.gif

    Won't do me any good...I need the Nikon version :D
    https://www.thephotographyhobbyist.com/
  • urbanariesurbanaries Registered Users Posts: 2,690 Major grins
    edited April 23, 2007
    kygarden wrote:
    Won't do me any good...I need the Nikon version :D

    :cry Come to the light!!! Laughing.gif
    Canon 5D MkI
    50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
    ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
  • kygardenkygarden Registered Users Posts: 1,060 Major grins
    edited April 23, 2007
    urbanaries wrote:
    :cry Come to the light!!! Laughing.gif

    No way!...besides, I like all the external controls/buttons on my D200 :Drolleyes1.gif
    https://www.thephotographyhobbyist.com/
  • DesmondDesmond Registered Users Posts: 187 Major grins
    edited April 23, 2007
    kygarden wrote:
    I've had that lens on my wish list. I'm so impressed with Tamron's 28-75, I'd be happy to trust them with the 17-50...so the next time I get a chance to buy the 17-50, I will. :) Looks like it's working out well for you. I've read good pro reviews too.

    I also have the 28-75 but find myself walking back into walls all the time , it can't go wide enough for my tastes especially in a crowded house with the bride getting ready . I always wanted every possible focal length in one lens but have accepted that for quality a smaller zoom from wide angle to 50/75 mm is sufficient since I can crop if I need to . When I go outside into good light the 18-200VR does a nice job of some tele shots but I have realized that f2.8 is a huge advantage !
    Nikon D80 , D50 , SB600 , SB800 , Nikon 18-200VR , Tamron 28-75 di 2.8 , Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 , Nikon 50mm 1.8 . Tamron 17-50 f2.8 , Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 .
Sign In or Register to comment.