Reply to Yet another lens question...

kaiyen posted a reply:

Hey there,



First, there is no substitute for fast glass. If you need speed, then a faster lens is a faster lens. Every stop counts. So yes, the 2.8 on the Tamron is a big deal, and it's worth it.



2.8 can be fast enough for indoor, it just depends on the lighting. You might have to go to ISO 800 or 1600, but with the 18-200 you're needing ISO 1000 or +.3 for the same shutter speed. Again, every bit helps. And at 50mm (max on the 17-50), I'm willing to bet the 18-200 isn't 3.5 anymore.



The 85 1.8 is a much more logical choice than the 1.4. The 1.4 is a ridiculously amazing lens, but the 1.8 is hard to beat in the value range. Perhaps more so than the 50mm 1.8 vs 1.4 debate, to be honest, as the bokeh and sharpness of the 85's are closer than with the 50's, IMO. It's a good lens if you want to get some nice closer shots of, say, a fighter's face. Those might be the best shots in many ways.



Ideally, I'd go in with a 17-50 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8. Or maybe the 50-150 2.8 Sigma. Throw in the 50 and an 85 1.8 and you got some faster options if you need them.



In fact, that's really close to the kit I bring with me to weddings :-), for the same reasons. Versatility with good speed with the zooms. Even more speed with the primes, but gotta zoom with the feet.



And having only 1 body doesn't mean you have to stick with 1 lens. It just means you gotta learn to switch lenses faster! :-)



allan