which lens is better?

[enfox14]

I am trying to decide between these two lenses for portrait work:

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3

I was set on the 28-75 because I like to have a fast lens in low light situations, but then someone told me that I would not want to shoot portraits any wider than f/6 because of focusing issues. Please help!

[ElCapitan]

Originally Posted by enfox14

I am trying to decide between these two lenses for portrait work:

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3

I was set on the 28-75 because I like to have a fast lens in low light situations, but then someone told me that I would not want to shoot portraits any wider than f/6 because of focusing issues. Please help!

I cannot say anything about the lenses themselves, but for portraiture, it all depends on the subject(s). With 2 or more subjects, you do want a smaller aperture. The more people and difference in distance, you will absolutely need f/8 at the very least or maybe even f/11 or greater. But with one subject, 2.8 could do a very nice job of separating the subject from the background.

If you are searching for a portrait lens, I would try seeing if a 50mm f/1.4 or 1.8 is in your budget. A prime lens is going to ultimately give you a sharper image. It offers the ability to shoot at a wide aperture when needed, or stop down and have a wider DOF.

[enfox14]

Thank you. I do have the 50mm 1.8, but it is too restricting indoors in small rooms sometimes. So, if i were trying to take a portrait of a family, the 2.8 would not be good?

[ElCapitan]

Originally Posted by enfox14

Thank you. I do have the 50mm 1.8, but it is too restricting indoors in small rooms sometimes. So, if i were trying to take a portrait of a family, the 2.8 would not be good?

It's not that the 2.8 wouldn't be good. You do have the option of shooting at a wider aperture. By restricting, do you mean that you wand a wider lens (I'm guessing that is the case)? It is tough to say. On one hand, you have the option of shooting at 2.8 with the 28-75, but the larger the zoom, the shallower the DOF becomes, though you are going to me limited to f/6.3 at 200.

I would personally go for the 28-75 because you have the option to shoot at f/2.8. However, if you feel you would need the larger zoom range over the f/2.8, then that is what you should go for. What do you feel you need? The larger zoom, or the ability to shoot in low light?

[jml79]

The superzoom lenses are known for distortion at both the wide and long end of the range and mediocre optical quality due to the compromises of making such a zoom range. I would think the 28-75 being a higher end lens, constant aperture and less range that it would have the better optical quality and the f/2.8 will be nice as well. The 18-200 is a consumer grade lens and will suffer for its huge range. reviews at Dpreview also support this.However it is flexible and many have one for vacation and general use.

Do you have a zoom already? Are you more interested in optical quality and low light performance or zoom flexibility?

My personal choice would be for the faster lens (likely the 17-50 version for me) and a decent 75-300 zoom. But that is me, you might like the idea of one lens for a range of situations.

[enfox14]

Thanks everyone. I think I favor the ability to shoot in low light with no flash over the superzoom. I really don't like using flash..

[LoveDSLR]

Go for a fast lens.

Originally Posted by enfox14

...but then someone told me that I would not want to shoot portraits any wider than f/6 because of focusing issues. Please help!

Interesting piece of information. However, why would Canon best portrait lenses are 85 f/1.2 L II & 135 f/2 L and 85 f/1.4 is Nikon best?

Originally Posted by enfox14

I think I favor the ability to shoot in low light with no flash over the superzoom. I really don't like using flash.

It depends on the light level and how high you are willing to set the ISO. A f/2.8 lens isn't as good in low light without flash for my Canon D30 than the Nikon D3.

[RichardTaylor]

I own the 135 F2 L.
The main thing about it is that is is sharp even wide open, and you really do have the ability to isolate your subject. (which applies to all fast lenses). Also it focuses super fast. Keep in mind you don't need to shoot it wide open all the time (however I tend to do so, especially for candid individual portraits)

It all depends on what you are trying to achieve, However when shooting wide open with any long, fastish, lens wide open your focus does have to be spot on.

Some examples taken at a street festival. all with the 135 F2 @ F2 on a Canon 40D:
Notice how messy backgrounds are almost removed.

(1)

Camera Canon EOS 40D
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1600)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 135 mm
ISO Speed 100
Exposure Bias -2/3 EV

(2)

Camera Canon EOS 40D
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/2000)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 135 mm
ISO Speed 100
Exposure Bias -2/3 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire

(3) At F2 the DOF can be paper thin, like here where the closest eye is sharp but the distant eye is not.


Camera Canon EOS 40D
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 135 mm
ISO Speed 100
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off

(4) This is from an indoor concert, with extreemly poor lighting.


Camera Canon EOS 40D
Exposure 0.003 sec (1/400)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 135 mm
ISO Speed 1600
Exposure Bias -2/3 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire

All pics have been sharpened during PPing.

I also do own a Tamron 18-200. It is just ok as a slow one lens travel solution, and that is it. Mine is not used any more.

[inkista]

Yeah, I loves me the 135L, too. But if the OP is feeling a 50/1.8 II to be too restrictive, then it's likely of the holy trinity of L primes, it would be the 35L he wants.

My basic opinion is that while the 28-75/2.8 might be a good fit, for a $450 budget, you can probably find a better fit. The 28-75/2.8 is most likely a lens that was designed for film--it's not particularly wide on a crop body dSLR (which is why the Tamron 17-50/2.8 gets mentioned) and while f/2.8 can be used for available light, if you really really want low-light capability, then a prime lens which can go a stop or two faster might be more what you're after.

The EF 35mm f/2 ($300), the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM ($480), and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ($440) are all possibilities for a fast "normal-on-a-crop" prime lens that would likely suit you better for portrait work than a 28-75/2.8. If you don't mind ditching autofocus, the upcoming (February) Samyang 35mm f/1.4 (also likely to be in the neighborhood of $400) is another lens to keep an eye out for.

Just me, though. I'm a fast prime junkie, and prefer shooting with lenses that are f/2 or faster.