If you HAD to use ONE lens to shoot a wedding...

[Damn Brit]

I'd use a 600mm with a TC from the parking lot. That's the only way you'd get me to officially shoot a wedding.

[pdo]

I have shot 1 wedding before with just the Tamron 28-75mm but since you've already had the Sigma 70-200. I would recommend the Tamron 17-50mm just because it's hard to get a good copy of the Pentax 16-50mm plus it's cheaper.

[Ratmagiclady]

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

You'll have a million people flogging zooms at you but...
I shot weddings very successfully for years with a 50mm lens.
31mm is the new 50, so I'd have to say the 31mm f/1.8LTD would be my choice.

Well, I've shot weddings with primes, (On a Pentax 6x7, for that matter) ...with 35mm to cover the transitions and party shots and whatever else pops up. With the artificial limitation of a single lens, I think someone with only video experience might be on a steep enough learning curve as it is without having to stick to the single focal length.

It's another good reason for the second body... sometimes you want the big quality you get out of primes, sometimes you want the flexibility.... It was a bit different with film, of course, but rule one is 'get the shot.'

[Deni]

The bride of a friend of mine asked me for my camera as she couldn't afford a wedding photographer. Over here in Albania, the Bride has her own wedding, then the next day or so the Groom goes and picks her up a her home, than it's the Groom's wedding.

Anyways, I offered her that I'd shoot her wedding for free but I told her that I don't keep responsibility if something goes wrong (luckily only the fill flash of my twin flash thyristor flash went wrong).

I brought almost all my lenses with me and 2 flashes. I started by using the sigma 28-70 mm f/2.8, but there's a lot of dancing in our type of weddings and the place was tight but very well lit. I found out that 28mm was too narrow there and I was already shooting at f/5.6-6.3 ISO800 so I gave the kit lens a try. 18mm was perfect and at the apperture I was shooting, some PP sharpening was just fine.

If I had to choose one single lens for a wedding a 17-70mm lens would be just right. Which one is better though the Pentax 17-70mm F/4 or Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5?

[pw-pix]

Tamron 17-50/2.8 would be pretty useful.
Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 also useful, but you might wish it was F2.8 at all focal lengths.

[benjikan]

Pentax DA* 16-50 f2.8

Ben

[Mechan1k]

Could never use just one lens ... especially if you were THE photographer there on the day.

Going on what is available ... the 16-50mm f/2.8 (if you can find a decent one without problems .... which is hard) ... and the 50-135mm f/2.8 are the ones I'd be using.

On a budget though ... I have a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 and it does well for these types of situations. If i coudl get one though ... the Tamron 28-75mm would be my choice though.

Also ... a decent flash is needed for fill light on portraiture for wedding shots.

[fearview]

da 16-45 f/4 with flash

or 16-50 F/2.8

[jensm]

One more for the Tammy 28-75/2.8. The range is perfect for weddings, IQ is unsurpassed for a zoom, and it's pretty cheap.

/Jens

[DJey]

DA* 16-50mm F2.8

[bramo]

I have the same question really. For my own wedding. Getting a friend to do it using my camera (K10D). Can't afford the Pentax DA* 16-50/2.8 (and to be honest the reviews aren't overwhelming at that price point). Two issues:

Best range: 17-50ish or 24-70ish?

Best lens: Sigma or Tamron?

Currently leaning toward the Tamron 28-75/2.8, but can make a case for the 17-50/2.8 or maybe the Sigma 24-70/2.8.

Tough call, price is similar on all 4 (inc. Sigma 18-50/2.8).

If I need more wide angle (only for group photos, likely outside) the kit lens could save me if I get the 28-75. Stuck if there's a problem in the other direction.

[Michael Barkowski]

Originally Posted by ashamsuddin

Okay, I've been reading the forums and so many of you are very knowledgeable about photography, that I know it will KILL you to actually answer this question, but straight answers will be very much appreciated.

My wife and I are wedding videographers, and she is going to start taking some entry level gigs as a photographer. I want to get her a good quality lens that she can use to get some great shots, but I can only afford one right now.

Right now she has the kit lens (18-55) and a Sigma 70-200 (f 4-???) - on a *istDL

We know that she needs something with a lower F stop, but what focal range does she need?

I've done three weddings as an amateur. The flash makes a huge difference, plus you need a great sense of timing, which means either a fast lens with manual focus, or autofocus.

Note that many of the lenses mentioned (DA*) are SDM and will not autofocus on *ist DL.

The 50/1.4 FA can serve as a portrait lens will give you lower depth of field at a given aperture than a normal focal length such as the 31mm/1.8. The in-focus areas are wicked sharp when stopped down, too, and it has very nice bokeh.

I think it would complement the two zooms nicely, especially considering that the zooms are at their worst at this focal range.

Whereas the kit lens' best range is near it's wide end (20-28mm) which will do for group shots, and the kit lens works great with a flash.

So if you have the bucks, go for a 50mm/1.4 plus a flash.

Just watch out for overexposing backgrounds, because like any super-fast lens it can get some serious colour fringing in the bokeh in high contrast areas. (no problem for black and white of course).

(If you had an SDM-enabled camera I'd say wait for the DA* 55/1.4 which comes out in January.)

P.S. shooting portraits with 50mm gives less perspective distortion than 31mm also.
P.P.S. The 40mm/2.8 is said to be the fastest at autofocus with the screw-based focusing, and also makes the *ist DL very pocketable. And it it still has at least a 1 stop advantage vs. the kit lens.

[farfisa]

I've only had the Tamron 28-75 for a few hours (thanks achan68!), but I'm really impressed so far--beautiful rendering and very sharp at all focal lengths even wide open.
I think if you went with the 16- or 17-50, you'd miss the portrait end too much.

Depends how you like to shoot people I guess!

28-75 would probably be better for more candid shots, since you'd have a little reach and therefore distance.

For standard official shots, maybe the 16- or 17-50 would be just fine! Sure make your groups easier.

Or go with the 28-75 and just put the ugly people on the ends.

[Eaglerapids]

If you don't mind manual focusing The Pentax-A 35-105/3.5 served me well outdoors at a wedding I shot and the 31Ltd came in very very handy.

[Fl_Gulfer]

Another vote for the Tamron 17-50/2.8