[sarge]

Hello everyone,
I need some advice. I cannot decide if I should get a Tamron 70-200 2.8 or the 77mm Limited. As of today they are both the same price.
I do mostly weddings and portraits. Both lenses would serve me well for those shoots. I see the "pixie dust" in the 77mm images I have looked at, but I think that perhaps the 70-200 would be more versatile.

Has anyone here used both theses lenses and can give me some advice?

[alamo5000]

Hello everyone,
I need some advice. I cannot decide if I should get a Tamron 70-200 2.8 or the 77mm Limited. As of today they are both the same price.
I do mostly weddings and portraits. Both lenses would serve me well for those shoots. I see the "pixie dust" in the 77mm images I have looked at, but I think that perhaps the 70-200 would be more versatile.

Has anyone here used both theses lenses and can give me some advice?

I have both and I have a 70-200 listed in the marketplace right now

But honestly I think it depends on what you are going to be doing. The 77mm is for sure going to be something special. Not very many lenses on the planet can touch it.

But for things that are moving around and whatever you might have better luck with the 70-200 merely because it's a zoom.

It's really impossible to truly answer your question without you sharpening up exactly what you are going to be doing. But from my limted experience at weddings the extra length alone will make your life a whole lot easier. You might not be able to get right on top of things during a wedding... whereas with the zoom you can do more at a distance so to speak.

As far as lenses go the Tamron is the sharpest zoom I have ever touched. As far as lenses period the 77 is in a class of it's own.

If you were doing wedding portraits that's one thing... but if you are doing ceremonies that's another.

[twuynh]

you have 139 reasons to choose the 70-200mm. yes I do think the 77 is one hell of a lens but come on. just get the 70-200 and dont overthink it.

[alamo5000]

you have 139 reasons to choose the 70-200mm. yes I do think the 77 is one hell of a lens but come on. just get the 70-200 and dont overthink it.

I only shot one wedding before (and that was my cousin's) and the long lens was the only way to go. My wedding advice is limited. But I have shot other events that were indoors or whatever and the versatility ruled.

I am not trying to sell you a lens (well I am) but I am being practical here too. In most instances that I can think of it's not really even a choice. The 70-200 all the way.

And second hand you get one hell of a good lens and save big bucks vs buying brand new.

And for portraits the zoom is very good as well. Not a slouch by any means.

[btnapa]

Hello everyone,
I need some advice. I cannot decide if I should get a Tamron 70-200 2.8 or the 77mm Limited. As of today they are both the same price.
I do mostly weddings and portraits. Both lenses would serve me well for those shoots. I see the "pixie dust" in the 77mm images I have looked at, but I think that perhaps the 70-200 would be more versatile.

Has anyone here used both theses lenses and can give me some advice?

I have both but I think the 70-200 will give you more versatility. BTW, I shot weddings for three years back in the mid 2000's. The standard issue lenses for wedding are the 24-70 and the 70-200.

[UncleVanya]

I have both but I think the 70-200 will give you more versatility. BTW, I shot weddings for three years back in the mid 2000's. The standard issue lenses for wedding are the 24-70 and the 70-200.

This is on a crop sensor camera right? I would think a zoom - but I would have been leaning towards the 50-135 myself.

[zbrueningsen]

Ive had both. I don't have the 77 anymore. It is spectacular for sure. My Tamron 70-200 is one of the rare lenses that have stayed in my arsenal. The 77 is special, but the 70-200 does everything asked of it pretty darn well. I would also recommend the Da*50-135 - it is a little slower AF than Tamron, but man it makes amazing pictures. And it is much lighter than 70-200s. All 3 of them are excellent for this work.

---------- Post added 06-21-16 at 09:40 PM ----------

Image quality on each - Tamron gets a 9.5 for portrait zoom. 50-135 gets a 10 for portrait zoom. Fa 77 gets 11 for one of best lenses ever.

[GodsPetMonkey]

Is the FA 77mm a wonderful lens that delivers stunning pictures? Yes!

Is it the sort of lens that can handle the demands of a fast paced and ever changing shooting environment of a wedding? Probably not.

As others have suggested the versatility and reach of the zoom will likely serve you better at a wedding, especially in your main body. That said, if you have the budget you could to stretch to getting both the 77 may make an interesting companion on a second body or for a second shooter, and it would definitely be a winner for when you are doing set piece portraits, then switch to the zoom for the ceremony.

[Billk]

The FA77 is the bomb for portrait shooting but for shooting a wedding ceremony you would probably appreciate the greater versatility of the zoom.


If you are shooting with two cameras, I would say you should have the FA77 on one of them.

[Reed]

As far as now, its my mostly used lens for portraiture outdoors.I simply love it. BUT mine needed to be sent back right away on free body-lens calibration to service centre- it took about two weeks. On newer DSLR like K-3.K-s2 etc it has very quick in AF, on my K-30 it was so-so but accurate, in my opinion its now faster than sigma 70-200 HSM.

[LeRolls]

I've shot a few weddings with the 77 and have always been happy with the results. That being said I'm sure the 70-200 would be much more versatile and probably make the job noticeably easier.

[sarge]

Some clarification. My wife and I shoot as a team. Typically I am shooting with a Sigma 17-50 2.8 while my wife shoots with an HD 55-300 mounted on her K-S2 on a tripod from the back of the ceremony. The Tamron would replace this lens and be used for some portraits. I do have the DA 70mm Limited and use it quite often for portraits. I am thinking the 77 would give me shallower DOF than the DA 70 with the 1.8 aperture. The 70-200 would gain me nothing other than weight with portraiture.

[Paul the Sunman]

I used the 55-300 quite a lot at an outdoor wedding recently, to great effect. It gave some very intimate views. Does it really work indoors though? The 70-200 f2.8 gives you extra speed at the expense of reduced reach; is that not worthwhile?

To me, a fast 70-200 is the perfect wedding lens.

[sarge]

I used the 55-300 quite a lot at an outdoor wedding recently, to great effect. It gave some very intimate views. Does it really work indoors though? The 70-200 f2.8 gives you extra speed at the expense of reduced reach; is that not worthwhile?

To me, a fast 70-200 is the perfect wedding lens.

I have had decent results inside with high (3200) ISO. The main shot my wife strives for is the groom's reaction to seeing the bride for the first time. I tend to get most of the other shots with the 17-50 2.8. Most of these shots are never going to be enlarged beyond 11x14. Most wind up in the album, so they are workable at 3200 ISO. Now I would never try and shoot a wedding by myself. I have always had two shooters.

[redcat]

I think wedding photog usually have two body and two zoom, 24-70 on one body and 70-200 on the other.
But if you only do portraits, the 77mm is a no-brainer