Favourite Lens for Weddings
- Thread starter radura
- Start date
- Status
i have the 17-55mm so i know it is good
definitely worth it... you can press the half shutter twice to refocus... and it focuses twice with NO hunting [do it ten times... also no hunting]otherwise you can try tamron 17-50mm which is amazing. but if your subject is moving, and you need to refocus fast, the lense may hunt
BIG MAJOR diff between nikkor 17-55mm and tamron 17-50
AF speed and focusing accuracy... nikkor wins [tamron is fast too but nikkor is just super super fast and accurate]
IR mode... nikkor no hot spots [never test tamron but review says it has]
night scene, long exposure causing starburst... tamron is superior... [nikkor SUCKS big time... until i am scared to use it for night scene... hahaha] 18-70 is better
Del_CtrlnoAlt
Senior Member
i have the 17-55mm so i know it is good
otherwise you can try tamron 17-50mm which is amazing. but if your subject is moving, and you need to refocus fast, the lense may hunt
BIG MAJOR diff between nikkor 17-55mm and tamron 17-50
AF speed and focusing accuracy... nikkor wins [tamron is fast too but nikkor is just super super fast and accurate]
IR mode... nikkor no hot spots [never test tamron but review says it has]
night scene, long exposure causing starburst... tamron is superior... [nikkor SUCKS big time... until i am scared to use it for night scene... hahaha] 18-70 is better
not to mention... nikon 17-55 is AF-S, Tamron is (dunno wat) hehe... so 1 is silent, another 1 is loud...
but from the system i have, i thinking of getting a tamron 1...
btw, u like buy alot of lense liao... sudden surge, body changed?
I also agree on the part that there's no hunting on the Nikon 17-55mm.
As for the night scenery part, I just remembered I have yet to try out the long exposure for it! Think I will try that out ASAP to determine if there is really a starburst. :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
As for the night scenery part, I just remembered I have yet to try out the long exposure for it! Think I will try that out ASAP to determine if there is really a starburst. :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
Hacker
Senior Member
Agree, but need 2 or 3 bodies.
Confused yet ? Each person replied will shoot from a little to a lot of difference to any one else. This drives the lens choice. Just as you cannot duplicate exactly another person way of seeing, you should instead see what you have and work with it. If you do this more you can slowly introduce a new focal range for the effect this produces provided that you can work with this range. Going to buy what other people use is risky - if you cannot see how to use a super wide the pictures are gonna to be weaker than if you used a range you can see. It the software behind the camera that drives the camera and lens and not the other way around.
TrailsofLife
Senior Member
24-70L for main body with 17-40L as my sidekick for day.
17-40L for main body with 85mm as my sidekick for nite.
17-40L for main body with 85mm as my sidekick for nite.
Trigger Happy
New Member
17-35 on the primary for the day ceremony, switching to a 28-200 for some versatility at church or ROM, with a 50 on the backup and just 17-35 at dinner/ lunch since ballrooms/ dining halls are small enough and require wider angles. but i bring along a 400 to shoot the guests that insist on being the difficult one at the table (instead of leaving) while everyone's posing.
yehosaphat
Senior Member
17-40mm for general purpose and 50mm for DOF play
Very true, totally agree with what you said. In terms of composition, that would differ from person to person, giving rise to very different end results. However, as not all lenses are made equal, I just wanted to get a feel of the popular choices and do a comparison of the image quality. For example, portrait shots straight out of the 60mm micro is sharp and visually more exciting beyond what my 18-135 kit can achieve (perhaps it is just the photographer). Hence, i do believe that the lens is a limiting factor to some extent.
Cheers!
Personally, I wouldnt choose 60mm Macro as a Portrait lens. I guess the subject wouldnt be very flattered either. :sweat:
haha, u make it sounds as if i am taking close up shots of their pimples...
Coz the lens is simply too sharp. Think you'll be able to see the wrinkles, freckles, scars, chickenpox marks very clearly, even if you do a semi half body shoot. Wost still for a head to chest shot. :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
tamron is very good... the AF is the normal thread/screw type. it is amazingly fast but may hunt once in a while... especially with moving objects
no, i have not changed my body
on long exposure... 17-55nikkor has one of the worst stars i have ever seen... so bad... so so so bad.... tamron wins if we have to compare only the stars... hehehe
tamron is very good... the AF is the normal thread/screw type. it is amazingly fast but may hunt once in a while... especially with moving objects
no, i have not changed my body
on long exposure... 17-55nikkor has one of the worst stars i have ever seen... so bad... so so so bad.... tamron wins if we have to compare only the stars... hehehe
Hey, what is defined by bad stars? Can show a pic for comparison? I think stars are better than round spots of light. haha
- Status
