Portrait/Landscape Lens

<p>I need a new lens, but i want this lens to allow me to produce fabulous Portiats, and beautiful landscape shots.......without making me change lenses. I was thinking Sigma 17-50mm vs the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8 for both. Can someone help me?<br>

I shoot the Nikon D7000 by the way<br>

Thanks</p>

 

<p>What sort of portraits are you considering? Head and shoulders from six feet back ... or full-length bridal-style shots? 50mm may feel a little short for some portrait scenarios.</p>

Nikon 70-200mm vr 1 or vr2.

I have the vr1 and im very happy with it, i hear the vr2 is even better.

<p>The portraits that I'm considering are head and shoulders, (maybe not from 6 feet away), and full-length bridal-style shots</p>

<p>what was wrong with the answers given to the almost identical question you posted yesterday?</p>

<p>Nikon's 18-200mm is possibly your best bet. But, based on the last 3 threads you posted, you may want to wait a bit until you figure out why your current lens(es) are not doing the job for you. A new lens will not make your pictures look any different compared to the lens(s) you have now.</p>

<p>Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED <br>

or <br>

Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR AF-S Nikkor.</p>

<h1 ></h1>

 

<p>What Andrew said.</p>

<p>Now, if you <em><strong>really</strong></em> know what you're doing, and are <em><strong>very</strong></em> good, you will use totally different lenses for "pro quality" portraits and landscapes. A landscape could be anything from wide to telephoto, a portrait is usually shot from about 85mm - 105mm on FX (50 - 58mm - 70mm on DX). Most guys seem to use either a prime lens or something like the 70-200 f2.8.</p>

<p>I've shot landscapes everywhere from 11mm to 200mm, and I've shot portraits at 50mm without too much difficulty, but if you have the space, even on DX, I've had GREAT luck with my 105mm f2.5 AI (which was real inexpensive).</p>

<p>For more casual photography, the lenses you mention will probably work very nicely.</p><div></div>

<p>The 18-105VR you already have. In the questions you asked so far, it looks like you are looking to replace for the sake of replacing. The 18-105VR is not a bad lens at all, give it a good chance and over time figure out what is not working for you.</p>

<p>for portraits i would go with the tamron 28-75 over either the sigma or tamron 17-50's. the problem with the 17-70 is it's only 2.8 @ 17-24mm. a large aperture will allow for subject isolation which isnt possible with a lens which is 5.6 on the long end. also for bridal shots you may be working in available light so constant 2.8 aperture would be a big plus. for that reason i would not get the 24-120/4.</p>

<p>the tamron will produce excellent portraits at 2.8-f/4 and excellent landscape shots at f/8-11. the nikon 24-70 does the same thing but costs 4x as much. the 70-200 does the same thing with more tele reach but costs 5x as much. you will not get a better price/performance ratio on any zoom than with the 28-75.</p>

<p>fwiw, i would not consider the 18-200 an improvement over the 18-105 except in focal length.</p>