Is it necessary for me to buy this lens

Vantage-Point · 02-26-2011, 06:44 PM

Hi all,
I want to do weddings and portraits photography including headshots. I already have the Pentax 40 and 70 mm limited lenses and the Sigma 50mm F1.4 lens. Do I need to purchase the 35mm limited 2.8 macro or can I get by with what I have or is there a another important prime lens I should get? The camera I have is the K-r.

**samski_1** · 02-26-2011, 06:49 PM

If you have the 40mm then I doubt you would need a 35 too. I don't think the macro function would be of much use in this field either.

twitch · 02-26-2011, 06:49 PM

A da21 would make more sense if you want a prime, given the lenses you already have. 35 is too close to 40 and not wide enough to be the widest lens you have.

Another option is a Tamron 17-50 if you want a zoom.

paperbag846 · 02-26-2011, 06:50 PM

I would say you certainly don't need a macro for this. The gains in image quality over the 40 aren't going to be worth it.

For portraits I think the 70 and 50 are perfect. Have you looked at maybe exchanging both of them for an FA 77? It's a mighty portrait lens... but you need a good working distance for it.

The 40 should be good for off-the-cuff stuff, but I'm wondering if you might be better served by a zoom for events work.

A combination like the 17-50 + FA 77/DA 70 would get you pretty far.

I have never done a real event but I've heard from friends who do (and people here) that if you are getting paid that zooms are typically the best way to make sure you never miss a moment. A portrait prime, though, would be great for the "staged" stuff - and the FA 77 has a lot of magic to it that suits weddings well, I think.

wlachan · 02-26-2011, 06:59 PM

When it comes to wedding, less is more. Switching lenses in a hurry won't be pretty. Perhaps add a DA15 or DA21. I assume you won't be the paid photographer because if you have to ask basic questions like this, you aren't ready.

Vantage-Point · 02-26-2011, 07:00 PM

Paperbag 846,
Would it be better if I bought the Pentax DA* 50-135 lens?

Bobe416 · 02-26-2011, 07:05 PM

You have all the primes you will need already (40, 50 and 70mm) but I think you will want a zoom to make life easier for youself. I can't recommend a particlar lens, but you might want to consider the 16-50, 16-45 or even the new 18-135

**samski_1** · 02-26-2011, 07:13 PM

For a zoom I can recommend the FA*28-70/2.8. It takes amazing photos and is about as fast as you'll get in a zoom. Unfortunately you won't get much change out of $1000 for a well used copy.

paperbag846 · 02-26-2011, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by jusfun21

Would it be better if I bought the Pentax DA* 50-135 lens?

For portrait, studio shoots I get the impression that the 50-135 is hard to beat, because flexibility can be very important. The samples I have seen from it are amazing. It also has silent focusing which is important at a wedding. However the FA 77 is going to beat the zoom as far as unique rendering is concerned. The question is whether the flexibility of the zoom is more important.

One option might be a combination of the 50-135 and the DA 21, or the Tamron 17-50 + Pentax 50-135. Or the Pentax 16-50 + 50-135. That is more expensive.

It might be worth hanging onto your 50mm 1.4 for really bad light.

There are some wedding photogs on here who would be able to give you better advice than I.

Another option if funds are limited is the Tamron 28-75. I know from experience that this particular lens is really sharp and a great portrait length. That lens, in combination with the fast 50 will be pretty flexible, but you mght also want to have something wide for group shots.

Frogfish · 02-26-2011, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by twitch

A da21 would make more sense if you want a prime, given the lenses you already have. 35 is too close to 40 and not wide enough to be the widest lens you have.

Another option is a Tamron 17-50 if you want a zoom.

My thoughts exactly - word for word !

Wheatfield · 02-26-2011, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by jusfun21

Hi all,
I want to do weddings and portraits photography including headshots. I already have the Pentax 40 and 70 mm limited lenses and the Sigma 50mm F1.4 lens. Do I need to purchase the 35mm limited 2.8 macro or can I get by with what I have or is there a another important prime lens I should get? The camera I have is the K-r.

You are woefully short of wide angles, and you don't have a fast standard.
Here is the wedding kit that works for me:
15mm, 21mm, 31mm, 55mm, and one or more of 70, 77 and 85/1.4.
And three camera bodies now that I have 3 decent ones.
I know it's boring, but you might want to consider another body, unless you already have at least one back up, and you will want something wider than the 40.
The 28-70/2.8 is a great lens, but it is, unfortunately, not wide enough. The 16-50 is, if you want a zoom.
I don't like them myself, but that's just me.
I'd get the 15 which I've found very useful. It isn't as wide as it sounds, but it is plenty wide.
At some point, you will have to take pictures of people in an enclosed area such as the back of a limousine. When you have to do that, you will be glad you chose the 15. With a wider angle, you can also stay close to the B&G during the greeting line.
Believe it or not, the Receiving Line is a great place to take pictures, but so many photographers ignore it.
I know when I shot film, I did, simply because it was expensive.
I totally missed a goldmine opportunity.
The Receiving Line is great for happy, emotional candids, which people just eat up.
But anyway, were I in your boots, I'd pick up an all in one short zoom until I could afford a fast standard and a fairly wide angle such as the 15. From Pentax the closest to standard is the 31 and it is well worth the cost of admission, but from a pure business perspective, I suspect the Sigma 35/1.4 would have to be considered.

Abstract · 02-26-2011, 10:34 PM

I would shot for the 18-135 and keep it on the whole time.

Honestly you don't wanna switch lenses during an event, its a pain, yeah it doable but you might miss "That Shot" If you hear me.

twitch · 02-26-2011, 11:12 PM

18-135 is far too slow for a wedding lens. For a wedding you need 2 bodies and a lens on each; 1 wide & fast, the other long & fast.

Abstract · 02-27-2011, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by twitch

18-135 is far too slow for a wedding lens. For a wedding you need 2 bodies and a lens on each; 1 wide & fast, the other long & fast.

Hmm you have a point, I guess I was viewing it in the sense that she has a K-r that is pretty good with low light/ISO.

vandamro · 02-27-2011, 04:27 AM

For as much as I love primes, I would very rarely use them in an event like a wedding.

Your first choice is the DA* 50-135 as you first lens. Put that on your first camera body.
Your second body should take care of your normal, wide, and ultra wide range. Me personally, I would carry something like the Sigma 24-70 on the second body and keep the DA15 in your pocket for the staged group photos. Another option is just to go for something like DA*16-50.

I use primes all the time and love them. But if I'm being paid to produce lots and lots of magical moments in a dynamic environment, I would double up on the bodies and stick with zooms.

My two cents,

02-26-2011, 06:44 PM	#1
Vantage-Point Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: New York Posts: 516	Is it necessary for me to buy this lens Hi all, I want to do weddings and portraits photography including headshots. I already have the Pentax 40 and 70 mm limited lenses and the Sigma 50mm F1.4 lens. Do I need to purchase the 35mm limited 2.8 macro or can I get by with what I have or is there a another important prime lens I should get? The camera I have is the K-r.

02-27-2011, 04:27 AM	#15
vandamro Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 84	Zooms not Primes For as much as I love primes, I would very rarely use them in an event like a wedding. Your first choice is the DA* 50-135 as you first lens. Put that on your first camera body. Your second body should take care of your normal, wide, and ultra wide range. Me personally, I would carry something like the Sigma 24-70 on the second body and keep the DA15 in your pocket for the staged group photos. Another option is just to go for something like DA*16-50. I use primes all the time and love them. But if I'm being paid to produce lots and lots of magical moments in a dynamic environment, I would double up on the bodies and stick with zooms. My two cents,

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Keep K-x buy premium lens, get K-r and get good lens, get the K-7 w/ lens or K-5?	crossover37	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	02-06-2011 10:38 PM
Should I buy this lens?	seachunk2	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	09-25-2010 11:50 AM
Should I buy this laptop to speed up my workflow or buy a new lens?	crossover37	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	09-24-2010 09:41 AM
SIGMA 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM Lens for PENTAX:To buy or not to buy?	thelittlecar	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	12-31-2009 06:01 AM
Which lens to buy?	SA Photo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	03-12-2009 08:26 AM

02-26-2011, 06:49 PM	#2
samski_1 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tasmania Photos: Albums Posts: 349	If you have the 40mm then I doubt you would need a 35 too. I don't think the macro function would be of much use in this field either.

02-26-2011, 06:49 PM	#3
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	A da21 would make more sense if you want a prime, given the lenses you already have. 35 is too close to 40 and not wide enough to be the widest lens you have. Another option is a Tamron 17-50 if you want a zoom.

02-26-2011, 06:50 PM	#4
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	I would say you certainly don't need a macro for this. The gains in image quality over the 40 aren't going to be worth it. For portraits I think the 70 and 50 are perfect. Have you looked at maybe exchanging both of them for an FA 77? It's a mighty portrait lens... but you need a good working distance for it. The 40 should be good for off-the-cuff stuff, but I'm wondering if you might be better served by a zoom for events work. A combination like the 17-50 + FA 77/DA 70 would get you pretty far. I have never done a real event but I've heard from friends who do (and people here) that if you are getting paid that zooms are typically the best way to make sure you never miss a moment. A portrait prime, though, would be great for the "staged" stuff - and the FA 77 has a lot of magic to it that suits weddings well, I think.

02-26-2011, 06:59 PM	#5
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	When it comes to wedding, less is more. Switching lenses in a hurry won't be pretty. Perhaps add a DA15 or DA21. I assume you won't be the paid photographer because if you have to ask basic questions like this, you aren't ready.

02-26-2011, 07:00 PM	#6
Vantage-Point Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: New York Posts: 516 Original Poster	Paperbag 846, Would it be better if I bought the Pentax DA* 50-135 lens?

02-26-2011, 07:05 PM	#7
Bobe416 Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 57	You have all the primes you will need already (40, 50 and 70mm) but I think you will want a zoom to make life easier for youself. I can't recommend a particlar lens, but you might want to consider the 16-50, 16-45 or even the new 18-135

02-26-2011, 07:13 PM	#8
samski_1 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tasmania Photos: Albums Posts: 349	For a zoom I can recommend the FA*28-70/2.8. It takes amazing photos and is about as fast as you'll get in a zoom. Unfortunately you won't get much change out of $1000 for a well used copy.

02-26-2011, 07:19 PM	#9
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by jusfun21 Would it be better if I bought the Pentax DA* 50-135 lens? For portrait, studio shoots I get the impression that the 50-135 is hard to beat, because flexibility can be very important. The samples I have seen from it are amazing. It also has silent focusing which is important at a wedding. However the FA 77 is going to beat the zoom as far as unique rendering is concerned. The question is whether the flexibility of the zoom is more important. One option might be a combination of the 50-135 and the DA 21, or the Tamron 17-50 + Pentax 50-135. Or the Pentax 16-50 + 50-135. That is more expensive. It might be worth hanging onto your 50mm 1.4 for really bad light. There are some wedding photogs on here who would be able to give you better advice than I. Another option if funds are limited is the Tamron 28-75. I know from experience that this particular lens is really sharp and a great portrait length. That lens, in combination with the fast 50 will be pretty flexible, but you mght also want to have something wide for group shots.

02-26-2011, 09:18 PM	#10
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by twitch A da21 would make more sense if you want a prime, given the lenses you already have. 35 is too close to 40 and not wide enough to be the widest lens you have. Another option is a Tamron 17-50 if you want a zoom. My thoughts exactly - word for word !

02-26-2011, 09:28 PM	#11
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,975	Originally posted by jusfun21 Hi all, I want to do weddings and portraits photography including headshots. I already have the Pentax 40 and 70 mm limited lenses and the Sigma 50mm F1.4 lens. Do I need to purchase the 35mm limited 2.8 macro or can I get by with what I have or is there a another important prime lens I should get? The camera I have is the K-r. You are woefully short of wide angles, and you don't have a fast standard. Here is the wedding kit that works for me: 15mm, 21mm, 31mm, 55mm, and one or more of 70, 77 and 85/1.4. And three camera bodies now that I have 3 decent ones. I know it's boring, but you might want to consider another body, unless you already have at least one back up, and you will want something wider than the 40. The 28-70/2.8 is a great lens, but it is, unfortunately, not wide enough. The 16-50 is, if you want a zoom. I don't like them myself, but that's just me. I'd get the 15 which I've found very useful. It isn't as wide as it sounds, but it is plenty wide. At some point, you will have to take pictures of people in an enclosed area such as the back of a limousine. When you have to do that, you will be glad you chose the 15. With a wider angle, you can also stay close to the B&G during the greeting line. Believe it or not, the Receiving Line is a great place to take pictures, but so many photographers ignore it. I know when I shot film, I did, simply because it was expensive. I totally missed a goldmine opportunity. The Receiving Line is great for happy, emotional candids, which people just eat up. But anyway, were I in your boots, I'd pick up an all in one short zoom until I could afford a fast standard and a fairly wide angle such as the 15. From Pentax the closest to standard is the 31 and it is well worth the cost of admission, but from a pure business perspective, I suspect the Sigma 35/1.4 would have to be considered.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-26-2011, 10:34 PM	#12
Abstract Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 388	I would shot for the 18-135 and keep it on the whole time. Honestly you don't wanna switch lenses during an event, its a pain, yeah it doable but you might miss "That Shot" If you hear me.

02-26-2011, 11:12 PM	#13
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	18-135 is far too slow for a wedding lens. For a wedding you need 2 bodies and a lens on each; 1 wide & fast, the other long & fast.

02-27-2011, 12:00 AM	#14
Abstract Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 388	Originally posted by twitch 18-135 is far too slow for a wedding lens. For a wedding you need 2 bodies and a lens on each; 1 wide & fast, the other long & fast. Hmm you have a point, I guess I was viewing it in the sense that she has a K-r that is pretty good with low light/ISO.