[abgsiddiq]

Hai. Im into wedding photography. Newbie. My first job ive used a sigma 10-20mm (friend borrowed). Love the wide view. However the distortion at corner is horrible at 10mm. I own a pentax 16-45 f4 lens.

It is time for upgrade. But im torn into two choices.

Pentax DA* 16-50mm f2.8 or
Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 HSM.

Does 16mm enough for wedding purposes? Does the DA* have a good IQ?

Do F2.8 really makes a different in lowlight condition compared to F3.5?

Need wedding photographers opinions. Thanks.

---

Last edited by abgsiddiq; 06-27-2011 at 12:53 AM.

[RXrenesis8]

Wedding? Gut reaction: The 16-50mm ƒ/2.8

I'm sure photogs with more experience will follow with all sorts of more helpful advice, questions, and comments like:

What other lenses do you have?

Do you have a backup body?

You could get a lot of lighting gear for the price of that 16-50!

Weddings? You're nuts!

etc, etc...

[TOUGEFC]

If I was you, instead of buying the 16-50, use that money and buy a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (as a main purpose lens) and with the money left over buy a FA 50 f/1.4 (for low light) or a decent flash if you do not have one yet ,and keep the 16-45 for the wide angle group shots.

[abgsiddiq]

Wedding? Gut reaction: The 16-50mm ƒ/2.8

I'm sure photogs with more experience will follow with all sorts of more helpful advice, questions, and comments like:

What other lenses do you have?

Do you have a backup body?

You could get a lot of lighting gear for the price of that 16-50!

Weddings? You're nuts!

etc, etc...

So basically youre saying 16-50 is the better choice?

If I was you, instead of buying the 16-50, use that money and buy a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (as a main purpose lens) and with the money left over buy a FA 50 f/1.4 (for low light) or a decent flash if you do not have one yet ,and keep the 16-45 for the wide angle group shots.

Thanks for the respond.

I have a FA 50/1.4 and flash. Im kinda wide-loving guy. 28mm wont be good for me. Furthermore in Malaysia, weddings ceremonies are held in houses, so wide is a must. Just that, im torn between these two lenses, one is wider but f3.5, one is 16mm but dude its a DA* and F2.8 (bokeh).

[TOUGEFC]

Fair enough, in that case I would be buying the DA* then

[Ash]

Only other option would be the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8
16-18mm will be enough of a wide angle for most things, but for the venue setting you would need wider lenses. It'd be taking both a Sigma 10-20 and the 16-50/17-50 lens for that reason.

[GaryH]

I would say the 16-50 for now then later pair it with the 50-135 for a pretty ultimate wedding set up.

[taiweitai]

if u are able to just borrow the 10-20 again, the perfect upgrade would reli be the Tamron 24-70mm. very affordable, less vignetting (full frame lens) and first class picture IQ

but if u are mainly shooting outdoor the DA 50-135 or one of the 70-200 would be very useful

[mysticcowboy]

This may sound like heresy, but I'd get the Tamron or new Sigma 17-50s over the DA*16-50. The optics on both are every bit as sharp and the wide angle distortion is easier to fix in post than the very complex distortion of the 16-50 at wide angles. You lose the weatherproofing, which is not a problem at weddings. I rented the 16-50 and compared it to my Tamron. I saw no advantage in IQ. I actually prefer the Tammy, but that's a preference, based on warmth, not at a matter of sharpness. At twice the price, I don't see the 16-50, as a good value proposition unless you need the weatherproofing.

Also the Tamron is a slight bit noisier to focus, though not objectionable. Pentax SDM motors are silent but not particularly fast and have had some reliability problems.

[George Lama]

You can't compare the two as far as usage goes. 10-20 has its unique uses and can't really be compared to the 16-50. Since you have the 16-45, the question should be whether you want to replace that one or keep it and buy a wide angle instead.

Eventually though, you certainly would benefit from having both.