Wedding togs - what lens

Whaich lens to buy

  • Total voters
    32
T

testbloke

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,451
Name
Kevin
Edit My Images
Yes
We have booked three weddings for 2011, very small low budget affairs but a chance to get experience.
Although my Pentax "kit" lens is weather sealed and produces great sharp images, it is a bit slow for this craft.

I am therefoer looking to invest in a new lens. I have bith a K20D and Kx body. One good quality lens in the form of the Pentax 100mm F2.8 Macro.

Price to performance wise, I am considering but cannot make up my mind between :-
Sigma 17 - 50mm F2.8
Sigma 24 - 70mm F2.8
Tamron 28 - 75 F2.8

I have read numerous reviews and believe all three have suitable image quality. things that concern me :-
1) Lens build quality (not a huge concern as it can be returned under warrenty ?)
2) Focal range

Plan was to have the 100 macro on the Kx body.

Really like the 70 / 75 rather than the 50, I know people will say get closer but it also helps isolate subject a little more etc. The worry here is losing the wide range, really only comes into play for large group shots in a confined space or landscape shots of the venue (?), this I could cover with the kit lens if needed (but that means swapping a lens).

If I go for the 17 - 50, is it long enough or is there too much gap between the 50 and the 100 on the second body ?

Your help and comments are very much appreciated
 
Sorry not familiar with the Pentax range, are either of the bodies full frame? If not I would go for the 17-50. I have the 28-75 2.8 on a full frame 5D and it's excellent imo - very sharp indeed and amazing for the price. Not sure it would be wide enough on a crop sensor though.
 
Not a wedding tog, but I woud've thought that 24 and 28 weren't wide enough. Although you will probably need to plug the gap between 50 and 100 too.
 
Sorry, both Pentax bodies are 1.5x crop sensor.

Interesting, what situation for wedding / portrait would 24mm (36mm on crop) not be wide enough ? Had thought only large group shots but as these will predominantly be outdoors then you can always take a step backwards ?

I initially thought the gap between 50 and 100 would be a bigger failing than losing a bit of width.

Grum, is that for wedding shoots ? If so, then do you use it exclusively or have something longer in the bag as well ?
 
testbloke said:
Interesting, what situation for wedding / portrait would 24mm (36mm on crop) not be wide enough ? Had thought only large group shots but as these will predominantly be outdoors then you can always take a step backwards ?
Click to expand...

Bad weather - resulting in indoor shots:shrug:
 
Sonriendo said:
Bad weather - resulting in indoor shots:shrug:
Click to expand...

LMAO, overlooked this being from sunny scotland ! Good point well made.
Adversely to my previous argument, with 17-50 I can always take a step forward to bridge the gap between 50 and 100 but can only take a step back if there is no wall !

Thanks for the perspective.
 
Have to say that I've never used anything wider than 24mm at a wedding - anything much wider than that risks being very unflattering to those at the edges of the photo.
 
Got a flash gun? Have you got 2?

Might be an idea...
 
Actually - scratch that - I've just realised that you'll be using this on a crop camera (I think...not entirely familiar with the Pentax range) so the 24mm would be 35mm equivalent on full-frame - in which case I definitely do go wider than that at times.
 
testbloke said:
Interesting, what situation for wedding / portrait would 24mm (36mm on crop) not be wide enough ? Had thought only large group shots but as these will predominantly be outdoors then you can always take a step backwards ?
Click to expand...

It can be very much venue-dependent. A wider angle is very useful for small registry office weddings where you are often stuck in a corner with no space to move back. The last one I shot, I had a 12-24mm on one camera and the 50mm f/1.4 on the other as I was only a few feet away from the bride and groom. The wide also came in handy because the entire party took the train to the reception venue - another very confined space!
 
ibecks said:
It can be very much venue-dependent. A wider angle is very useful for small registry office weddings where you are often stuck in a corner with no space to move back. The last one I shot, I had a 12-24mm on one camera and the 50mm f/1.4 on the other as I was only a few feet away from the bride and groom. The wide also came in handy because the entire party took the train to the reception venue - another very confined space!
Click to expand...

That sounds more like the wedding we wil be shooting first, wider seems to be the way to go then
 
So you have 3 weddings booked without the kit you need to do it?

f2.8 lenses have 2 purposes,

1) f2.8 lets more light in - so you can capture images in darker conditions (though upping the ISO also works for this but you trade noise) but it also allows the AF to work in darker conditions.
2) f2.8 allows you to reduce the DoF.

For really wide shots which capture the scene you are going to want high aperture anyway so your current 18-55 will be OK. For wide shots where you are struggling for distance the DoF between f3.5 (I'm guessing this is the widest your current lens will go) and f2.8 isn't going to be a massive improvement and the light gathering improvement isn't that much either.

Is there a reason you aren't looking at a 70-200 f2.8 or similar? There is a huge difference between f5.6 and f2.8 at the longer length for DoF purposes and also in light gathering (its the difference between shooting f2.8 ISO 400 and f5.6 ISO 1600).

As someone else has hinted at is there anything that you don't have backup for, becasue working without a safety net at a wedding is not only risking your reputation, but far more importantly you are taking chances with someone elses wedding and that's not fair.

I hope the B&Gs know of your experience level and that you've got PL and PI insurance in place.
 
first 17 or 18mm(35mm eq 27mm) wide on a crop is fine.
on full frame 24mm is wide enough, so the siggy would be fine.
on full frame but most nikon wedding togs use the nikon 24-70mm f2.8 and a nikon 70-200mm f2.8 not sure about canon togs.

but as your using crop cameras maybe consider getting a pentax 17-50mm f2.8(also weather sealed) and at some point the pentax 60-250mm f4(weather sealed), or a siggy 70-200mm f2.8,
 
SimonTALM said:
So you have 3 weddings booked without the kit you need to do it?

*** Hence I am buying the necessary kit months in advance

f2.8 lenses have 2 purposes,

1) f2.8 lets more light in - so you can capture images in darker conditions (though upping the ISO also works for this but you trade noise) but it also allows the AF to work in darker conditions.
2) f2.8 allows you to reduce the DoF.

*** I need a lens but have over 20 years experience in photography, weddings is something new.

For really wide shots which capture the scene you are going to want high aperture anyway so your current 18-55 will be OK. For wide shots where you are struggling for distance the DoF between f3.5 (I'm guessing this is the widest your current lens will go) and f2.8 isn't going to be a massive improvement and the light gathering improvement isn't that much either.

*** But current lens at 50mm is F5.6, almost two stops less than the lenses I am considering

Is there a reason you aren't looking at a 70-200 f2.8 or similar? There is a huge difference between f5.6 and f2.8 at the longer length for DoF purposes and also in light gathering (its the difference between shooting f2.8 ISO 400 and f5.6 ISO 1600).

*** I have a good longer lens and a 100 F2.8 macro

As someone else has hinted at is there anything that you don't have backup for, becasue working without a safety net at a wedding is not only risking your reputation, but far more importantly you are taking chances with someone elses wedding and that's not fair.


I hope the B&Gs know of your experience level and that you've got PL and PI insurance in place.

*** LOL, get over yourself. We have explained to the couples we have no previous experience of doing weddings, we are not charging for the shoot. They have virtually zero budget and are most gratefull to us. We will be taking four bodies, four flashes etc etc between the two of us so thanks we are covered
Click to expand...

should have known better than to mention the word "wedding" on TP.

thanks to the other responses that refrained from lecturing or asuming I know **** all about photography because I have limited budget at the moment and want to make best use of it.
 
testbloke said:
should have known better than to mention the word "wedding" on TP.

thanks to the other responses that refrained from lecturing or asuming I know **** all about photography because I have limited budget at the moment and want to make best use of it.
Click to expand...

Maybe he was a bit harsh but thats quite an overreaction. There was lots of helpful stuff in his post too.
 
mastertrinity said:
Tamron 17-50mm says it all really. There's not much of a major gap between 50mm and 100mm, I'm sure you'll be able to cope with that.
Click to expand...

Thanks, have also just notice the tammy is significantly less expensive than the Sigma and IQ etc is comparable.
 
I applaud you for going for it,all the best.:):thumbs::clap:
 
jockwav said:
I applaud you for going for it,all the best.:):thumbs::clap:
Click to expand...

Thank you, first step on a big ladder but as I say this is people who would otherwise be relying on family members with compact cameras. To further set the record straight, we have already passed several big weddings onto local established togs as we are not daft !
 
It is something i would love to try as maybe a second tog,but not as THE tog.:)
 
jockwav said:
It is something i would love to try as maybe a second tog,but not as THE tog.:)
Click to expand...

Reckon the first club shoot was much more scary than the first wedding will be.
Just checked your site, great stuff. Will you be at George square on 28th this month ?
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately i can,t make that,its a shame really.
I was born & bred in glasgow,we left there when they knocked our house down on the gascube rd,just down from maryhill,donkeys years ago.:)
 
jockwav said:
Unfortunately i can,t make that,its a shame really.
I was born & bred in glasgow,we left there when they knocked our house down on the gascube rd,just down from maryhill,donkeys years ago.:)
Click to expand...
That is a shame, looking forward to it. Trying to use some old contacts to sort some access out ...
 
For what it's worth my slowest lens for wedding work is f2.8. I shot in a small Essex church last month with (as you might expect) small, stained glass windows. Even with my D3 ramped up to ISO 3200 and 50mm and 85mm f1.4 I had to use a monopod and shoot at 1/30th to get decent images. The stained glass and infra-red heaters played havoc with WB but shot in RAW and corrected in CS4.

I should mention that I metered the area I was shooting before the wedding - the f2.8's never made it out of the bag!
 
Last edited:
smudgie49 said:
The stained glass and infra-red heaters played havoc with WB but shot in RAW and corrected in CS4.

I should mention that I metered the area I was shooting before the wedding - the f2.8's never made it out of the bag!
Click to expand...

Why did you not set a custom WB? Assuming she was a blushing bride :lol:

Mick
 
smudgie49 said:
For what it's worth my slowest lens for wedding work is f2.8. I shot in a small Essex church last month with (as you might expect) small, stained glass windows. Even with my D3 ramped up to ISO 3200 and 50mm and 85mm f1.4 I had to use a monopod and shoot at 1/30th to get decent images. The stained glass and infra-red heaters played havoc with WB but shot in RAW and corrected in CS4.

I should mention that I metered the area I was shooting before the wedding - the f2.8's never made it out of the bag!
Click to expand...

thats a bit scary, the church and registery office (other is an outdoor ceremony) are okay with using flash
 
my sigma 17-50 lives on my body most of the time.
cracking lens for the money and has produced some great wedding shots.
would love a canon 24-70. but the wifes getting the next EXPENSIVE lens.
good old nifty fifty has been pressed into action occasionaly at REALLY murky chruches.
hopefully Focus will see me with a 1.8 85 mm too.
 
I did my first wedding in November for a friend as the main tog (by myself in fact)
Using my K100D and Tamron 18-250 plus an AF360

Was very restricted in the ceremony and was told I could not use flash (this was in a hotel as well) and the lighting being as it was I was forced into the 1600/3200 range and very much dependent upon the Longer range of the lens (which at its fastest is 6.3 at 250mm). These things do happen I have been told.

As an extra lens to look at, have you thought about the new SMC DA 35mm f/2.4 ?
I've just got one on Thursday, and while it is fixed range the optical quality on offer even at its fastest just basically jumped over the tamron zoom, plus the added bonus of f/2.4 for the low light will be a big help.

I don't know the zoom's you mentioned personally so I couldn't give a verdict on them, but I know they will all perform better then my 18-250 which giving the conditions did okay (I only wished I had the sensor from the K-x to help me out!)
 
Scorg, did consider the new 35/2.4 but as I plan to have the 100mm prime on one body I really want a zoom on the other body. Dont want to have to swap lenses over if it can be avoided.
 
inaneredstripe said:
my sigma 17-50 lives on my body most of the time.
cracking lens for the money and has produced some great wedding shots.
would love a canon 24-70. but the wifes getting the next EXPENSIVE lens.
good old nifty fifty has been pressed into action occasionaly at REALLY murky chruches.
hopefully Focus will see me with a 1.8 85 mm too.
Click to expand...

thanks, my partner will be shooting nifty 50 and a 70 - 300 so hopefully we will have all the bases covered.
I am now sold on the Tamron 17-50, only fly in the ointment is a possible on a used pentax DA* 16-50 for the same price but definately one of these two now.
 
Went for the Tamron 17 - 50 F2.8, initial impressions are good, very sharp.

Thanks for the input and especially those who recommended the Tamron.
 
A few years ago I used to shoot with a Pentax K10D and found the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 to be a SUPERB lens with this body.

I have since moved over to a Canon set up and shoot the odd wedding and agree with most posters that f2.8 will be pushing it a lot for indoor shots.

However, there are few faster options which the OP can chose between and still have some flexibility in FL terms. Even considering primes the 30 mm primes are possibly a bit long on a crop body although I have no idea of whether the Sigma 20 mm prime fits a Pentax K mount or whether it is any good ?

In short, you could do a lot worse than the Sigma 17-50 f2.8. It may not fully do what you want though.
 
Ooops !

Sorry, I missed your last post whilst typing.

Hope the Tamron does a good job for you.
 
gary43 said:
Ooops !

Sorry, I missed your last post whilst typing.

Hope the Tamron does a good job for you.
Click to expand...

No problems, thanks for your input. Both the sigma and Tamron had great reviews, I ended up etting the first that a decent supplier had in stock, which was the Tamron. Not had a huge amount of time to play but it looks very sharp
 
I find myself using the focal length range 16-35mm about 60% of the time at weddings. A combination of favouring environmental portraits and the limitations of cosy venues!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top