Tameron 2.8 17-50 or 28-75???

Genshu · 01-08-2011, 11:42 PM

Hi,

Guess I get a little nerotic when it comes to camera choices, (mostly cause it is a lot of money for me!) took for ever to choose the K-x which I am happy with. Now should I get the 17-50 or the 28-75? Cant make up my mind. I am leaning towards the 28-75 cause I shoot mostly portraits of the kids, but having a hard time giving up on the wide-angle. I do value the wide angle shot yet sometimes find that in getting everything in wide angle makes everything smaller. If I get the 28-75 I could learn to seam photos when wanting the wide angle shot. That is how I feel yet having a hard time going ahead with it. Any thoughts! thank you!

paperbag846 · 01-09-2011, 12:05 AM

Do you have the kit lens?

If so use it for wide angles and go for the 28-75, it's the better portrait lens imho.

Frogfish · 01-09-2011, 12:10 AM

I have to say that having both the Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 17-50 that usually I will go with the Sigma for UWA (often 17mm is just not enough and when switching lenses for one shot the Sigma will stay on the camera until I need a short tele) !

If it's for portrait then it HAS to be the 28-75 (I have the old Pentax 28-80 and think this is a great range for portrait - just happens the lens is only so-so) especially so because children are not going to act naturally if you are in their faces with a camera, but if you are planning a wider variety of uses for the lense then you need to consider what percentage of shots will be for each subject and go with the lense that fills that need.

Jewelltrail · 01-09-2011, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Genshu: I am leaning towards the 28-75 cause I shoot mostly portraits of the kids....

I own them both, and shoot kids with both, but the 50-75mm range makes shooting portraits a good deal easier. I would get the 28-75 if I were you.

Genshu · 01-09-2011, 09:11 AM

Thank you for your opinions. Yes I do have the kit lense. trying to figure the percentages that I use. Gettin ready to go for the 28-75. Seems like the two options I am considering for increasing focal length capabilities is seeming photographs for wide angle, and cropping photos for telephoto. any thoughts about this? I thought I would crop more often then I do, but then again I was hoping to spend more time on my photos then I have thus far.

Jewelltrail · 01-09-2011, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Genshu: Seems like the two options I am considering for increasing focal length capabilities is seeming photographs for wide angle, and cropping photos for telephoto.

Sure, you can seam for wider angle, and crop to tele, so long as you maintain IQ to print size. The KX gives you plenty of MPs to start with. Good Luck!

Genshu · 01-09-2011, 09:28 AM

what is IQ?

paperbag846 · 01-09-2011, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Genshu

what is IQ?

Image quality, which the 28-75 has in spades

.

Jewelltrail · 01-09-2011, 11:02 AM

Quote:

paperbag: Image quality, which the 28-75 has in spades

It sure does!

Quote:

Genshu what is IQ?

Genshu. if you crop an image too much. you can destroy its IQ. For example. if you crop a 12mp image down to 1mp, and expect it to print at high quality @ 11 x 14--this is unreasonable. That is what I meant by making sure you have enough IQ to print.

BTW, here is a shot with the 28-75 from X-mas eve.
28mm--f 3.5--1/20th--ISO 400

Genshu · 01-09-2011, 04:22 PM

Georgeous!

Edgar_in_Indy · 01-09-2011, 10:37 PM

I would vote for the 28-75mm since your main focus is portraits/people. I have that lens and have taken thousands of pictures with and I absolutely LOVE it. Pefect zoom range for photographing people. Wide enough for group shots, and long enough to get head shots without being right in the subject's face.

I would hold onto your 18-55mm for the odd occasion that you need a wide angle. Maybe you could later add something like the Sigma 10-20mm to augment your 28-75mm at the wide end.

You may also want to check out this thread I started recently regarding my experience when I bought the Tamron 17-50mm:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/124013-tamron-...-k-x-pics.html

I found that, when compared to my other lenses (Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, and Pentax 18-55mm), the Tamron 17-50mm was half a stop darker wide open, and a full stop darker at around f/10. So when compared to my other f/2.8 lenses, the 17-50mm was effectively an f/3.3 or f/3.4 lens.

The copy I had was very sharp and produced beautiful pictures, but I really needed f/2.8 for the type of photography I do, so I returned it. A lot of other people have reported exposure irregularities with this lens as well.

I shoot full-manual 99% of the time, but people who use in-camera metering have reported having to add from 1/2 to a full stop of exposure compensation when using the 17-50mm. That would be consistent with my results. I think that for some reason the lens just doesn't open the aperture quite as wide as it should (which could also contribute to the 17-50mm's reputation for exceptional sharpness at f/2.8).

Genshu · 01-09-2011, 11:04 PM

Wow that is an interesting thread, never heard of such a problem. I also find it interesting that you were going through similar dilemenas over getting some wider focal length. It really needs to be the 28-75 now! Still curious how much I use the wider focal lengths on my kit lense.

Frogfish · 01-10-2011, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Genshu

Wow that is an interesting thread, never heard of such a problem. I also find it interesting that you were going through similar dilemenas over getting some wider focal length. It really needs to be the 28-75 now! Still curious how much I use the wider focal lengths on my kit lense.

You can easily find out. download this software and point it to where you keep all your photos (C:, D:, whole disk, back-up HD, wherever) :

PhotoME - Exif, IPTC & ICC Metadata Editor

If you have a Mac (like me) you don't need VM ware or Parallels, you can use Crossover which I find much easier as it runs just like a Mac program without having to switch over to VM / Parallels.

Edgar_in_Indy · 01-10-2011, 07:58 AM - **1 Like**

Genshu:

Here's a long message I wrote to somebody on another forum recently when they were considering the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for their K-x after being disappointed by a superzoom:

I don't blame you for wanting to ditch the superzoom. I, too, fell for the allure of the all-in-one lens, but I had it back up for sale on eBay within a few weeks. I just wasn't getting as many keepers as I did with my other lenses.

I also have the K-x (white, of course) and I would recommend the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for you. The 17-50mm f/2.8 is supposed to be based on the 28-75mm, and both lenses are excellent optically, but I find the 28-75mm to be a better choice for several reasons: Better edge-to-edge sharpness, no-vignetting problems, and more light-gathering ability. I also prefer the focal length and the physical size of the 28-75mm.

Both lenses are excellent, but the 28-75mm has the advantage of being designed to fit a 35mm/full-frame sensor, so when used on an APS-C DSLR there is virtually no vignetting (dark corners and edges in pictures). You also tend to stay in the "sweet spot" of the glass, so your pictures have better edge-to-edge sharpness.

You mentioned kids, so I assume you will be doing a lot of portrait-type photography. In that case, the 28-75mm is a much better focal length range than 17-50mm. With a longer focal length, you are able to blur the background easier, thus separating your subject from the brackground. You will also be able to get more candid photos since you won't have to be as close. And longer focal lengths tend to be more flattering for shooting people.

I have shot thousands of images with my 28-75mm, and I LOVE this lens. Because of the great image quality, I have heard some people describe it (at least when used on an APS-C camera) as prime that zooms, or as having a bag full of primes in one lens.

I bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 a few weeks ago, thinking that I would use it when I was shooting in tight quarters, or when I wanted to do landscape-type photography. I was overall impressed with the lens, especially with the sharpness, but I noted two problems. First, vignetting was very noticeable at f/2.8 at practically any focal length. Not really a big deal since this can be corrected in post-processing, but it's one more thing you will have to mess with.

The big problem was that the lens performed like an f/3.3 or f/3.4 lens, not an f/2.8 lens. I noticed that when switching between the two lenses in my studio, but keeping the camera exposure settings the same (I always shoot in Manual mode), the pictures from the 17-50mm were underexposed.

I did a series of test shoots with both lenses under controlled lighting conditions at all apertures, and I discovered that when the 17-50mm was set at f/2.8, it produced images exposed somewhere between the f/3.2 and f/3.5 images from the 28-75mm. That's why I say it's an f/3.3 or f/3.4 lens. It simply is not letting in as much light as it should. I later also tested my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 lens and my Pentax 18-55mm lens. All lenses exposed as expected EXCEPT for the Tamron 17-50mm.

I have since noticed that many other people have talked about using exposure compensation on their camera when shooting with the 17-50mm. My copy underexposed about half a stop wide open, and a full stop at f/9 (when compared to my other lenses). This matches what other people have reported when talking about how much exposure compensation they dial in when using this lens, so I don't think I had a bad copy.

I believe that the lens is not opening the aperture as wide as it should, and/or the aperture is not being reported correctly to the camera.

The lens was otherwise excellent and produced nice pictures, but since I do a lot of indoor and low-light photography, so I want and need f/2.8. If this is not a big deal for you, then it is a lens I can recommend.

Another thing that you might consider is that many people, especially those new to the hobby, tend to use too-wide of an angle in order to capture more of the scene, and they end up with a lot of pictures that are cluttered and un-interesting. By using the 28-75mm you will be forced to focus more tightly on your subject, and will end up with more pleasing pictures. And 28mm is still wide enough to take group pictures indoors as long as you have a little space to backup.

The 28-75mm is also a little bigger than the 17-50mm, and I love how serious it looks on the camera, and I like the heft of it when I hold the camera/lens.

My current kit consists of the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. I still have my 18-55mm kit lens, but I only use it when I absolutely need a wide angle. The last time I had the 18-55mm on my camera to actually use it was last summer when I was taking interior pictures of a vehicle I was selling.

It looks like the 28-75mm sells now for around $500, slightly exceeding your budget of around $420. If I were you, I would suggest that you find a used copy of the Tamron 28-75mm. You can often find them on ebay in the neighborhood of $300 - $350.

I would then use the money left to put it towards the Pentax 55-300mm lens. A lot of people sell their "DA L" 55-300mm kit lens on eBay, and if I recall they go for around $200, sometimes a little less. That's a bargain for a 300mm lens with good image quality.

I had the DA version of the 55-300mm but I had to sell it to buy the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. When I have some extra money I'll be buying the DA L version for those occasions when 150mm is not close enough. The 55-300mm is also a decent portrait lens and can produce BEAUTIFUL bokeh at longer focal lengths. Some of the most beautiful photos of my kids were captured with my 55-300mm.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope it helps. Good luck with your purchase, and let us know what you decide!

Jewelltrail · 01-10-2011, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Edgar in Indy: Both lenses are excellent, but the 28-75mm has the advantage of being designed to fit a 35mm/full-frame sensor, so when used on an APS-C DSLR there is virtually no vignetting (dark corners and edges in pictures). You also tend to stay in the "sweet spot" of the glass, so your pictures have better edge-to-edge sharpness.

It is true that the 28-75 handles vignetting better than its sibling due to being Full-Frame. However, it is not true that the 28-75 has better edge to edge sharpness than the 17-50, even though the 28-75 is a lens designed for FF.

Actually, the 2 lenses perform very similarly, edge to edge. See, for example, Photozone's MTF charts for the Nikon copies. The closest you can get to a direct comparison, is the 35mm focal range of the 17-50 vs the 40mm focal range of the 28-75. Look at these charts and see what you think. Of course, these charts do not mean your copy of the 17-50mm performs the same. However, from what I can see with my 17-50 & 28-75, the 17-50 enjoys the sharpness edge in just about all situations.

01-08-2011, 11:42 PM	#1
Genshu Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Berkeley, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 81	Tameron 2.8 17-50 or 28-75??? Hi, Guess I get a little nerotic when it comes to camera choices, (mostly cause it is a lot of money for me!) took for ever to choose the K-x which I am happy with. Now should I get the 17-50 or the 28-75? Cant make up my mind. I am leaning towards the 28-75 cause I shoot mostly portraits of the kids, but having a hard time giving up on the wide-angle. I do value the wide angle shot yet sometimes find that in getting everything in wide angle makes everything smaller. If I get the 28-75 I could learn to seam photos when wanting the wide angle shot. That is how I feel yet having a hard time going ahead with it. Any thoughts! thank you!

01-09-2011, 11:02 AM	#9
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: paperbag: Image quality, which the 28-75 has in spades It sure does! Quote: Genshu what is IQ? Genshu. if you crop an image too much. you can destroy its IQ. For example. if you crop a 12mp image down to 1mp, and expect it to print at high quality @ 11 x 14--this is unreasonable. That is what I meant by making sure you have enough IQ to print. BTW, here is a shot with the 28-75 from X-mas eve. 28mm--f 3.5--1/20th--ISO 400 Last edited by Jewelltrail; 01-09-2011 at 11:49 AM.

01-10-2011, 08:25 AM	#15
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Edgar in Indy: Both lenses are excellent, but the 28-75mm has the advantage of being designed to fit a 35mm/full-frame sensor, so when used on an APS-C DSLR there is virtually no vignetting (dark corners and edges in pictures). You also tend to stay in the "sweet spot" of the glass, so your pictures have better edge-to-edge sharpness. It is true that the 28-75 handles vignetting better than its sibling due to being Full-Frame. However, it is not true that the 28-75 has better edge to edge sharpness than the 17-50, even though the 28-75 is a lens designed for FF. Actually, the 2 lenses perform very similarly, edge to edge. See, for example, Photozone's MTF charts for the Nikon copies. The closest you can get to a direct comparison, is the 35mm focal range of the 17-50 vs the 40mm focal range of the 28-75. Look at these charts and see what you think. Of course, these charts do not mean your copy of the 17-50mm performs the same. However, from what I can see with my 17-50 & 28-75, the 17-50 enjoys the sharpness edge in just about all situations. Last edited by Jewelltrail; 01-10-2011 at 09:01 AM.

01-09-2011, 12:05 AM	#2
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Do you have the kit lens? If so use it for wide angles and go for the 28-75, it's the better portrait lens imho.

01-09-2011, 12:10 AM	#3
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	I have to say that having both the Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 17-50 that usually I will go with the Sigma for UWA (often 17mm is just not enough and when switching lenses for one shot the Sigma will stay on the camera until I need a short tele) ! If it's for portrait then it HAS to be the 28-75 (I have the old Pentax 28-80 and think this is a great range for portrait - just happens the lens is only so-so) especially so because children are not going to act naturally if you are in their faces with a camera, but if you are planning a wider variety of uses for the lense then you need to consider what percentage of shots will be for each subject and go with the lense that fills that need.

01-09-2011, 12:21 AM	#4
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Genshu: I am leaning towards the 28-75 cause I shoot mostly portraits of the kids.... I own them both, and shoot kids with both, but the 50-75mm range makes shooting portraits a good deal easier. I would get the 28-75 if I were you.

01-09-2011, 09:11 AM	#5
Genshu Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Berkeley, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 81 Original Poster	Thank you for your opinions. Yes I do have the kit lense. trying to figure the percentages that I use. Gettin ready to go for the 28-75. Seems like the two options I am considering for increasing focal length capabilities is seeming photographs for wide angle, and cropping photos for telephoto. any thoughts about this? I thought I would crop more often then I do, but then again I was hoping to spend more time on my photos then I have thus far.

01-09-2011, 09:23 AM	#6
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Genshu: Seems like the two options I am considering for increasing focal length capabilities is seeming photographs for wide angle, and cropping photos for telephoto. Sure, you can seam for wider angle, and crop to tele, so long as you maintain IQ to print size. The KX gives you plenty of MPs to start with. Good Luck!

01-09-2011, 09:28 AM	#7
Genshu Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Berkeley, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 81 Original Poster	what is IQ?

01-09-2011, 09:34 AM	#8
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by Genshu what is IQ? Image quality, which the 28-75 has in spades .

01-09-2011, 04:22 PM	#10
Genshu Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Berkeley, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 81 Original Poster	Georgeous!

01-09-2011, 10:37 PM	#11
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	I would vote for the 28-75mm since your main focus is portraits/people. I have that lens and have taken thousands of pictures with and I absolutely LOVE it. Pefect zoom range for photographing people. Wide enough for group shots, and long enough to get head shots without being right in the subject's face. I would hold onto your 18-55mm for the odd occasion that you need a wide angle. Maybe you could later add something like the Sigma 10-20mm to augment your 28-75mm at the wide end. You may also want to check out this thread I started recently regarding my experience when I bought the Tamron 17-50mm: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/124013-tamron-...-k-x-pics.html I found that, when compared to my other lenses (Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, and Pentax 18-55mm), the Tamron 17-50mm was half a stop darker wide open, and a full stop darker at around f/10. So when compared to my other f/2.8 lenses, the 17-50mm was effectively an f/3.3 or f/3.4 lens. The copy I had was very sharp and produced beautiful pictures, but I really needed f/2.8 for the type of photography I do, so I returned it. A lot of other people have reported exposure irregularities with this lens as well. I shoot full-manual 99% of the time, but people who use in-camera metering have reported having to add from 1/2 to a full stop of exposure compensation when using the 17-50mm. That would be consistent with my results. I think that for some reason the lens just doesn't open the aperture quite as wide as it should (which could also contribute to the 17-50mm's reputation for exceptional sharpness at f/2.8).

01-09-2011, 11:04 PM	#12
Genshu Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Berkeley, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 81 Original Poster	Wow that is an interesting thread, never heard of such a problem. I also find it interesting that you were going through similar dilemenas over getting some wider focal length. It really needs to be the 28-75 now! Still curious how much I use the wider focal lengths on my kit lense.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-10-2011, 12:27 AM	#13
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by Genshu Wow that is an interesting thread, never heard of such a problem. I also find it interesting that you were going through similar dilemenas over getting some wider focal length. It really needs to be the 28-75 now! Still curious how much I use the wider focal lengths on my kit lense. You can easily find out. download this software and point it to where you keep all your photos (C:, D:, whole disk, back-up HD, wherever) : PhotoME - Exif, IPTC & ICC Metadata Editor If you have a Mac (like me) you don't need VM ware or Parallels, you can use Crossover which I find much easier as it runs just like a Mac program without having to switch over to VM / Parallels.

01-10-2011, 07:58 AM - 1 Like	#14
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Genshu: Here's a long message I wrote to somebody on another forum recently when they were considering the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for their K-x after being disappointed by a superzoom: I don't blame you for wanting to ditch the superzoom. I, too, fell for the allure of the all-in-one lens, but I had it back up for sale on eBay within a few weeks. I just wasn't getting as many keepers as I did with my other lenses. I also have the K-x (white, of course) and I would recommend the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for you. The 17-50mm f/2.8 is supposed to be based on the 28-75mm, and both lenses are excellent optically, but I find the 28-75mm to be a better choice for several reasons: Better edge-to-edge sharpness, no-vignetting problems, and more light-gathering ability. I also prefer the focal length and the physical size of the 28-75mm. Both lenses are excellent, but the 28-75mm has the advantage of being designed to fit a 35mm/full-frame sensor, so when used on an APS-C DSLR there is virtually no vignetting (dark corners and edges in pictures). You also tend to stay in the "sweet spot" of the glass, so your pictures have better edge-to-edge sharpness. You mentioned kids, so I assume you will be doing a lot of portrait-type photography. In that case, the 28-75mm is a much better focal length range than 17-50mm. With a longer focal length, you are able to blur the background easier, thus separating your subject from the brackground. You will also be able to get more candid photos since you won't have to be as close. And longer focal lengths tend to be more flattering for shooting people. I have shot thousands of images with my 28-75mm, and I LOVE this lens. Because of the great image quality, I have heard some people describe it (at least when used on an APS-C camera) as prime that zooms, or as having a bag full of primes in one lens. I bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 a few weeks ago, thinking that I would use it when I was shooting in tight quarters, or when I wanted to do landscape-type photography. I was overall impressed with the lens, especially with the sharpness, but I noted two problems. First, vignetting was very noticeable at f/2.8 at practically any focal length. Not really a big deal since this can be corrected in post-processing, but it's one more thing you will have to mess with. The big problem was that the lens performed like an f/3.3 or f/3.4 lens, not an f/2.8 lens. I noticed that when switching between the two lenses in my studio, but keeping the camera exposure settings the same (I always shoot in Manual mode), the pictures from the 17-50mm were underexposed. I did a series of test shoots with both lenses under controlled lighting conditions at all apertures, and I discovered that when the 17-50mm was set at f/2.8, it produced images exposed somewhere between the f/3.2 and f/3.5 images from the 28-75mm. That's why I say it's an f/3.3 or f/3.4 lens. It simply is not letting in as much light as it should. I later also tested my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 lens and my Pentax 18-55mm lens. All lenses exposed as expected EXCEPT for the Tamron 17-50mm. I have since noticed that many other people have talked about using exposure compensation on their camera when shooting with the 17-50mm. My copy underexposed about half a stop wide open, and a full stop at f/9 (when compared to my other lenses). This matches what other people have reported when talking about how much exposure compensation they dial in when using this lens, so I don't think I had a bad copy. I believe that the lens is not opening the aperture as wide as it should, and/or the aperture is not being reported correctly to the camera. The lens was otherwise excellent and produced nice pictures, but since I do a lot of indoor and low-light photography, so I want and need f/2.8. If this is not a big deal for you, then it is a lens I can recommend. Another thing that you might consider is that many people, especially those new to the hobby, tend to use too-wide of an angle in order to capture more of the scene, and they end up with a lot of pictures that are cluttered and un-interesting. By using the 28-75mm you will be forced to focus more tightly on your subject, and will end up with more pleasing pictures. And 28mm is still wide enough to take group pictures indoors as long as you have a little space to backup. The 28-75mm is also a little bigger than the 17-50mm, and I love how serious it looks on the camera, and I like the heft of it when I hold the camera/lens. My current kit consists of the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. I still have my 18-55mm kit lens, but I only use it when I absolutely need a wide angle. The last time I had the 18-55mm on my camera to actually use it was last summer when I was taking interior pictures of a vehicle I was selling. It looks like the 28-75mm sells now for around $500, slightly exceeding your budget of around $420. If I were you, I would suggest that you find a used copy of the Tamron 28-75mm. You can often find them on ebay in the neighborhood of $300 - $350. I would then use the money left to put it towards the Pentax 55-300mm lens. A lot of people sell their "DA L" 55-300mm kit lens on eBay, and if I recall they go for around $200, sometimes a little less. That's a bargain for a 300mm lens with good image quality. I had the DA version of the 55-300mm but I had to sell it to buy the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. When I have some extra money I'll be buying the DA L version for those occasions when 150mm is not close enough. The 55-300mm is also a decent portrait lens and can produce BEAUTIFUL bokeh at longer focal lengths. Some of the most beautiful photos of my kids were captured with my 55-300mm. Sorry for the long post, but I hope it helps. Good luck with your purchase, and let us know what you decide!