dave_mclaughlin1

<p>Some have suggested that the sharpness of the 18-35 versus the 17-50 would not come into play for my uses. That's mostly correct (although we have had a few photos on billboards), as most photos would be used on the web or printed at smallish sizes.<br /><br />I'm more considering the difference in max. aperture:<br />-many situations are indoors under somewhat poor lighting conditions and I don't want to (or can't) use a flash/lights<br />-as I've written above, I'd really like to be able to shoot candid shots of individuals and small groups of people with decent blurring of the background</p>

<p>Thanks so much for all of your responses so far! Some more info and responses to questions/comments.<br /><br />My job will be to try to create some great photos to feature in various places, not necessarily to always document an event where it’s critical I always get the shot and don't miss a moment. We have someone else who will be using a similar camera with a walk-around lens, and they have been doing the "document that this event happened" sort of photos for years. The rare events where I will absolutely need to get the shot are usually under pretty controlled settings, such as the handshake photos at graduation, where I am stationary on a tripod and can pretty much get my settings down beforehand.<br /><br />I already have a list of accessories we'll be getting, like a camera bag, a decent filter or two, memory cards, and all that. I'm not planning to purchase a better flash, as I don't intend to use the one on the camera either. We will have some continuous LED lights used mostly for video stuff that we can use when taking headshots of staff, athletes, etc. Mostly I will be shooting candid shots of individuals or small groups of people interacting on campus.<br /><br />I think I'm pretty convinced that the longer lens will be the Sigma OS 50-150. I'd rather have my longer lens let me zoom out to 50, especially since I'll be at a 1.5 crop. Live sports photography of our teams will be something fun that I'll try to do from time to time, but that's not the main focus of my task here. I'm not worried about losing the extra reach of the 70-200. Heck, maybe next year I'll try to convince the powers-that-be to go for a 150-600 or some other long reach lens for stuff like that.<br /><br />-<br /><br />I think my only decision now is between the 18-35 and the 17-50.<br /><br />The wider lens would be used mostly for shots of small groups of folks where I'd like to limit the depth of field. I'd also take some wide shots of a room full of people and landscape type shots around campus, where the wide aperture probably wouldn't come into play as much, but those situations are less important to me than the candid shots of people.<br /><br />I got a large set of photos we had a pro come in and shoot somewhat recently, which everyone loved. These are almost all photos of one or two students working individually or with a faculty member. She was using a D800 with the 24-70 and 70-200 combo (f/2.8), but we are attempting to get some similar photos on a smaller budget. <br /><br />Analyzing everything in Lightroom, it looks like there aren't too many shots that would fall in the area between 35 and 50 (when converting for crop factor). Almost all of the shots were taken at f/2.8 and give nice isolation of the subjects from the background, which is honestly pretty important since often the setting may be a rather sterile-looking classroom or lab if we're indoors. Nobody wants to look at photos where they can see the individual concrete blocks behind the students...<br /><br />So anyway, I'm wondering how much more difficulty I'd have achieving that blurred background on a crop-sensor body at f/2.8 versus their full-frame f/2.8 shots. I was thinking that the 18-35 at f/1.8 or f/2 might help me achieve approximately the same amount of isolation when taking shots of 2-3 people interacting.<br /><br />I also understand what some have said about f/1.8 perhaps being too thin. Then of course others have said achieving shallow depth of field at f/2.8 on a crop-sensor is difficult. Guess it's all in the eye of the beholder!</p>

<p>Thanks for the input so far! I'm curious to see if anyone else has anything to add about the 18-35, but if I went with the 17-50 as my shorter lens, would you recommend the 50-150 or the 70-200 for the longer end? I'd lean towards the 70-200, but that's without using any of them!</p>

<p>I work on a small college campus and have been given authorization to purchase a D7200 and two lenses. Both of these options just about fit within the budget. Any thoughts for one or the other? (Going FF on a D750 or even D610 would be nice, but that was declined for $$$ reasons.)<br /> <br /> Here's what I'll be shooting: indoor events, portraits, students talking with professors, general "life on campus" shots indoors and outdoors, sports action shots, graduation photos on stage, etc. My goal will usually be to get a few very nice shots from a shoot for use on the web or in print, but not necessarily to create a large set of images documenting the event.<br /> <br /> (We have another employee who will be getting a D7200 + 18-140, or some similar combo. They don't know their way around a camera as much and just take lots of general documentation photos at events, etc. We need more photos appropriate for features on our website, in print, etc.)<br /> <br /> It's been a few years since I owned a DSLR, and I shot mostly primes then, but don't want to go that route now. I just want two lenses in the bag.<br /><br />I could go with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 plus a used 50-150 f/2.8 OS:<br />I love the DxOMark ratings and reviews, but would I miss stabilization in the 18-35? I'd probably be going mostly handheld. I also like the idea of using the 18-35 for portraits where we want to isolate the subject but still have a good bit of the surroundings in the frame, such as out about campus or in our theater or bigger rooms indoors. How much of a difference would I expect between the 18-35 and the 17-50 when shooting a wide portrait around 35mm in regards to image quality and subject isolation?<br /><br />Or I could go with a Tamron (or Sigma, I guess) 17-50 f/2.8 VC plus the 70-200 f/2.8 VC:<br />By my shorter lens reaching to 50, I could step up to a 70-200 and I'd like the extra range at 200mm for some events and sports. I like that the 17-50 would be smaller and lighter weight than the 18-35 with the added benefit of stabilization. Would I wish I had gone for the 18-35 or would 17-50 suit me just fine?<br /><br />Anyone have any opinions or suggestions based on your experience carrying just two lenses, particularly any of these? Thanks in advance!</p>