# Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 vs. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8



## J.Bat (Nov 6, 2008)

Which is better? I shoot mainly portraits and wedding.

Any help would be awesome.


----------



## anubis404 (Nov 6, 2008)

For portraits and wedding, I would say the 28-75. It can reach further, which means you don't have to stand as close to your subjects. The only reason you would need the 17-50 is for wide shots, which I don't believe you'd be doing when shooting portraits and wedding. Now, I don't know a thing about these lenses. I am basing all of this off the focal lengths.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 7, 2008)

J.Bat said:


> Which is better? I shoot mainly portraits and wedding.
> Any help would be awesome.



Protraits and weddings??  I'll not go there because I already know where it is going to end, but instead direct you to do a little googling on your own to find that answer.


----------



## Dao (Nov 7, 2008)

If it is just for Portraits, I prefer the 28-75mm range.  I like the result of the longer focal length on portraits.  Based on what I saw, my next lens purchase ....  most likely is going to be 85 F/1.8 or something similar (Mainly for portraits)

As for wedding.....   sorry, I really have no idea.


----------



## skieur (Nov 7, 2008)

The big question is whether you are shooting full frame or with a 1.5/1.6 sensor. With full frame it is the first. With the 1.5 factor it is the second.

skieur


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 7, 2008)

I wouldn't be satisfied to shoot a wedding with a 28-75mm on a crop body...I like having a wider angle available.  After all, you can always crop an image if needed, but you can't really add what's not there.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 7, 2008)

Most wedding photographers need a wider angle so that they can capture more people in a smaller area... however, if minimal distortion is your need, 70-200 is what you need for proper formals and portraits for minimal "chipmunk cheek" and less of that "I look fatter" look.


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 7, 2008)

That's great advice from Jerry...and that's why I carry two bodies while shooting a wedding.  Most of the time, one body has a 17-50mm lens and the other has a 70-200mm lens.


----------



## icassell (Nov 7, 2008)

I won't rule on your application, because I don't do that kind of work.  I will say that the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is my walkabout lens and a wonderful piece of glass.  On my 30D (1.6X crop), it does nice portrait work, but is a bit on the short end for that.


----------



## skieur (Nov 7, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> I wouldn't be satisfied to shoot a wedding with a 28-75mm on a crop body...I like having a wider angle available. After all, you can always crop an image if needed, but you can't really add what's not there.


 
Yes, I find a 28mm (35mm equivalent) is needed for some group and head table shots.  On a crop body a 28mm is more like a 42mm which is not sufficiently wide for a lot of shots.

skieur


----------



## bigtwinky (Mar 13, 2009)

Sorry, bumping an older thread but I had the same question and was doing some back searching.

I've been debating between the 17-50 and the 28-75.  I understand the need for a wide angle being one of the reasons people like the 17-50, but the reason I like the 28-75 is the longer focal range.  I already have 10-22 to cover the wide angles.  I know I'd have to change lenses when I'd need one or the other.

I've read that an ideal focal range for portraits is 85-105 (closer to 85).  So on a crop, that would be 50-70, a range that the 17-50 just barely touches on.

Arg...so many choices.


----------



## NateS (Mar 13, 2009)

I went through this same thing and ended up buying the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.  My biggest worry was doing a wedding with a big dress/train that you might need the wider end to get it all.  Not to mention fitting many people into a frame while being relatively close to them.  If I was only doing portraits I'd go for the 28-75 but think that 28 might not be wide enough for a lot of wedding shots on a crop body.  

Ideally it would be nice at a wedding to have 2 bodies with the 17-50 on one and something like a Tamron 90mm / Nikon 85mm or some other longer prime attached on the second body.


----------



## roentarre (Mar 19, 2009)

28-75 is simply superb!  I love it so much.  Just a little flimsy build.


----------



## bigtwinky (Mar 19, 2009)

NateS said:


> I went through this same thing and ended up buying the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. My biggest worry was doing a wedding with a big dress/train that you might need the wider end to get it all. Not to mention fitting many people into a frame while being relatively close to them. If I was only doing portraits I'd go for the 28-75 but think that 28 might not be wide enough for a lot of wedding shots on a crop body.
> 
> Ideally it would be nice at a wedding to have 2 bodies with the 17-50 on one and something like a Tamron 90mm / Nikon 85mm or some other longer prime attached on the second body.


 
I do have a 10-22 wide angle, but that would mean switching lenses during a wedding.  But as I don't plan on doing many weddings anytime soon, thats not something I really need to worry about.  My usage would be mainly as a walk around lens.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 19, 2009)

For wedding use get the 17-50 if you can't get both.  

A 28-75mm is a great range for a large venue but gets cramped quickly for smaller churches.  

The 28-75mm would be much better for the before shots and reception due to your ability to get closer (more intimate shots if you will) without being obtrusive.  And we know what obtrusive gets you at a wedding.


----------

