was this sound advice?

[phatkid77]

so im at camera store, asking about the sigma 24-70 f2.8 or the Tamron
28-75, he too recommended the Tamron, BUT also said a viable option is the nikkor 18-70 DX lens....which may be true for wedding work, but would be useless for basketball.... his theory was tha if i had the Tamron 28-75 i wouldnt be shooting group shots at f2.8 anyway, rather f6 or higher, lower whatever...u know what i mean..... i'm like mmmm this DOES make sense
id just be missing out on a good fast lens for indoor sports..

i have the sigma 18-200 i could use too, but Nikkor would be much better i presume..

having said all that, i cant help but think the optical quality of the Tamron over the kit lens would be MUCH better... i only say this as the 70-200VR pics are phenomenol, which i imagine is due to better glass, adn faster aperatures??

any advice?

thanks

[erichlund]

so im at camera store, asking about the sigma 24-70 f2.8 or the Tamron
28-75, he too recommended the Tamron, BUT also said a viable option is the nikkor 18-70 DX lens....which may be true for wedding work, but would be useless for basketball.... his theory was tha if i had the Tamron 28-75 i wouldnt be shooting group shots at f2.8 anyway, rather f6 or higher, lower whatever...u know what i mean..... i'm like mmmm this DOES make sense
id just be missing out on a good fast lens for indoor sports..

i have the sigma 18-200 i could use too, but Nikkor would be much better i presume..

having said all that, i cant help but think the optical quality of the Tamron over the kit lens would be MUCH better... i only say this as the 70-200VR pics are phenomenol, which i imagine is due to better glass, adn faster aperatures??

any advice?

thanks
Well, if you told him about shooting roundball and he still recommended a slower lens, then I wouldn't put much value in his opinion. I've mostly heard good things about the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, but I've not used it. No personal experience to add, but just on specs is provides capability the Nikkor doesn't have. Now the 70-200VR is another matter, but it's also a different range of use, and an entirely different cost bracket.

I guess the bottom line if you usage needs an f/2.8 lens, f/3.5 - 5.6 just won't do, expecially when a lot of your shots will be out at 70mm.

[coldrain]

Both the Sigma 24-70 and Tamron 28-75 f2.8 are much better than the Nikkor 17-80 lens. The only thing the Nikkor does better is its silent AF motor.

[Esoterra]

At the last wedding I did, I was shooting with my Sigma 24-70 and my assistant was learning with his Nikkor 18-70. we were both using the same camera body (D70s). Although he did shoot most of his pics at 18mm, when reviewing the RAW files of the wedding there was a HUGE difference in quality favoring the Sigma. If you want me to post pics I can!

[phatkid77]

comparos are always good..... haha

that was what id couldnt really understand his reasoning, sure on the f2.8 lens, group wise be shoootin over f5.6 so its a waste of money....but i thought the optics were much better in the faster glass...