Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-02-2011, 11:09 PM   #16
Pentaxian
cmohr's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Brisbane. Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,089
QuoteOriginally posted by John Poirier Quote
I think the best investment you could make at this stage would be in a couple of books. One on the basics of digital photography, one on wedding photography. Then do some serious practice and testing wtih the lenses you already have. Either simulate wedding situations, or shoot weddings as a backup photog on a non-paying basis. Your Sigma lenses may not be perfect, but they will serve to develop baseline criteria for informed lens selection using first-hand experience rather than the widely varying opinions you encounter on the Web. You can also learn a lot about proper technique in general without placing clients' interests at risk.

Wedding photography seminars are a standard feature of many profesional photograpers' associations.

Remember that weddings are very important events in peoples' lives. It would be highly unethical to go professional in this field without thorough preparation. Could get very expensive legally speaking too.
Great Advice. Not casting any doubts on the OP and their talents in any way, but a good starting point for the non-creative side of the business is just as important as the creative side. Wedding photographers have one of the hardest, most demanding and stress filled jobs IMHO, the expectation from the clients is incredibly high, and even small errors can cause big problems with the clients, so a good starting point for the business is very important.

I remember a wedding I went to a few years back, I was asked to take some shots in the background, not get in the way as they had a wedding photographer, but just wanted a few extra people taking photos. The girl (professional Wedding Photographer) showed up at the wedding with a EOS 30d, kit 18-55, kit 55-300 , small sunpak flash, (OK, equipment isn't always everything, seen some great photos from lesser cameras).

Photos came back, the Bride was beside herself, over exposed, solarized, poster type colours, horrendious CA, people cutoff in group shots, eyes closed, (she only ever took 1 pic of each group - I remember thinking at the time, shes either Very Good - OR. something else...), Feet cutoff, half heads, out of focus, even a few where she was obviously using 250th or 500th sec with the flash. Beer bottles and general rubbish around their feet in shots, various passersby in the photos. These were the photos she had put on the disc for them, and was presenting as the finished shots for the album, I said to them that they ask for the colours to be fixed, get rid of solarizations, and poster effects, and level out the grey in the pics, so as I could print them photo books for the people at the wedding. The WP said those were the photos, I told the Bride to get the original files so as we could fix them ourslves, edit out the crap and make something, again the WP said that all there is, she had actually edited the original jpegs she took, on her imac in iphoto, and saved over the originals, then only saved the pics she had chosen (some only at 72dpi at webpage sizes), and trashed the others as "she wasn't paid to store everybodies photos, so I just get rid of the ones I dont choose for your album"..

My GF at the time (a graphic artist) and myself spent many hrs in PS correcting what we could, plus the Bride then also wanted many of my pics in there as they far prefered them, as well many shots from others at the wedding with various other P&S and DSLRs, all of which were far better than the WP's, for their "free album" that came with the package, as well as a Gaint Print of the couples choice. (which ending up again being one of mine). The WP spat the dumby a bit over that, (I can completely understand her anger), but in the end , she had certainly not delivered anything close to what the couple had paid a "good amount" of cash for, and her unprofessional attitude was less than impressive. She demanded to know when the other photos had been taken and why she was not called to come and take the shots again, (puzzled the crap out of everyone till we realised, she had no idea I was there snapping away in the background and thought evrybody had "come back" at a later date and staged the pics again!!!!). I was given a link to her website, and looking at the site there was some great looking pics there, but, you could click on the pic and see the "properties" of the photos, many still had tech info, camera models, lenses info, dates, pics were from high end EOS and Nikons, impressive lens info, and dates ranging back 5 years or more, here business had only been going for 8mths, not to say maybe she didn't work somewhere before and use their equipment ect ect, but then, one would think that the quality and knowlegde she displayed would not support what she delivered. The couple complained to the Wedding Seminar they went to that put them onto this WP, they said they no longer accepted her along to their shows as there had been a few too many complaints.

11-03-2011, 12:21 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wellington
Posts: 969
Wow!

Thats is appalling!
I was going to do a friends wedding- my first as the togger- but they will be going with a "Pro" now as they got a great price and they wanted me to just relax and enjoy myself (phew!). They do have some reservations about this photographer as the photos ON HER WEBSITE, are similar to those described above - chopped limbs, too much background/too tight, flash burn, closed eyes, people not facing the camera in group shots.
I was just going to flick around with a fast Tele and get heaps of candid shots and double up on some of the group shots.
Why I still glad I'm not primary photographer- You need to be an excellent people manager first and foremost. I'm a nature/still life shooter! I find the only way I can get a great portrait is when someone ISN'T posed for the camera!
My 2c on the thread topic is make sure your workflow is tight and organised- will make everything including shooting alot easier as you will be able to manage and back up the huge quantity of shots that come out of a wedding.
In terms of equipment I would recommend the two zoom approach, as above in my comment about candids a fast tele can be really handy (DA*50-135, Tamron 70-200). I would perhaps be more inclined with a Tamron 28-75 for your main zoom as it will be mainly portraits and 28mm IS wide enough indoors- when you shoot wide you will have plenty of warning so either something like a 16-45 or a DA15 could go one another body or on camera when the need arises.
11-04-2011, 01:08 PM   #18
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4
Original Poster
Sorry to post and shoot through.......the real job that pays for the hobby got frantic.

There's some great advice in the replies, really appreciate it. I probably should have pointed out that we're not rank amateurs, having done sports photography as a sideline for about 5 years, and a couple of weddings with a pro......so maybe "not yet a pro and dangerous" might be a better category.

I noticed a few people recommended the 50-135mm. I gather from the review that this equates to the 70mm-200mm in 35mm? Just so I can get a reference, how would that relate to the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 I have now?

Given I have the above, and the 50mm prime, would the Pentax SMC DA 16-50mm f2.8 ED AL IF SDM be a better purchase at this stage?
11-04-2011, 01:59 PM   #19
Veteran Member
maxfield_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,215
There's a lot of overlap between the DA* 50-135 and your Sigma, so if I were looking to do it on a budget, I would stick with that and your 50mm prime as per your plan, and save that money for a pro standard zoom, or a wide prime.

I don't own the DA* 16-50, but I'm not overly impressed with it on paper, I'm looking at the Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 myself. Each lens has it's pros and cons though. The Tamron is less expensive, and sharper than the Pentax, but The Pentax features weather sealing, and something that may be important to you in a church: quiet focusing.

Have a look around this site for some reviews. Their Pentax review list isn't exhaustive, but they have a lot of lenses that you might consider. For some of the Sigma and Tamron lenses, check the Canon or Nikon pages, the differences from mount to mount should be negligible.

11-04-2011, 02:54 PM   #20
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,825
I think you will need the da* 16-50 and 50-135, or fa* 80-200/2.8.

For the prepared shots, a couple primes would be quite nice, but for the non-staged ones, you will need to decide ahead of time which zoom to use, and whick to put on your backup body.
11-04-2011, 08:20 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
The 16-50 absolutely shines at any kind of event work. That's the only time I even use mine, but it's so good at it that I find it hard to let go of.
11-04-2011, 09:32 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wellington
Posts: 969
An alternative to the DA* 16-50 could be a Sigma 17-50 2.8 with HSM quiet focusing, check review of this and Pentax/Tamron on this site.
11-05-2011, 04:27 AM   #23
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by John Poirier Quote
I think the best investment you could make at this stage would be in a couple of books. One on the basics of digital photography, one on wedding photography. Then do some serious practice and testing wtih the lenses you already have. Either simulate wedding situations, or shoot weddings as a backup photog on a non-paying basis. Your Sigma lenses may not be perfect, but they will serve to develop baseline criteria for informed lens selection using first-hand experience rather than the widely varying opinions you encounter on the Web. You can also learn a lot about proper technique in general without placing clients' interests at risk.

Wedding photography seminars are a standard feature of many profesional photograpers' associations.

Remember that weddings are very important events in peoples' lives. It would be highly unethical to go professional in this field without thorough preparation. Could get very expensive legally speaking too.
All excellent advice. Put this into practice and you won't go far wrong.

Most wedding togs use zooms as, posed shots aside, you just don't have the time to capture important shots if you don't have the FL you need on your camera. You also need to invest a lot of time in learning fill flash.

Definitely get the K5 because you would be irresponsible to shoot a paid wedding gig with just one camera - and it's a superb camera for weddings with it's wonderful high ISO/ low noise boundaries.

Lenses to consider :
Tamron 17-50/2.8
Tamron 28-75/2.8
Pentax 50-135/2.8 (the Sigma 50-150/2.8 - if you can still find one - is preferred as it is much faster focusing and near silent HSM).
Tamron 70-200/2.8 (the Sigma is more expensive but is quieter - the Tamron is sharper though maybe that is not so much a critical requirement at weddings where you are not always looking for shots of ladies to be too sharp).
Sigma 30/1.4 (low light, ultra-sharp, creative, portrait, demon) !

11-05-2011, 04:30 AM   #24
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
I think you will need the da* 16-50 and 50-135, or fa* 80-200/2.8.

For the prepared shots, a couple primes would be quite nice, but for the non-staged ones, you will need to decide ahead of time which zoom to use, and whick to put on your backup body.
That may be a wonderful lens but used and with no warranty and at around twice the price of a Sigma 70-200 or three times the price of a Tamron 70-200 I know where I'd put my money.
11-05-2011, 12:46 PM   #25
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,825
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
That may be a wonderful lens but used and with no warranty and at around twice the price of a Sigma 70-200 or three times the price of a Tamron 70-200 I know where I'd put my money.
Because it's almost entirely mechanical, I wouldn't sweat the warranty as much.

The FA* has rendering that is unlike the images I have seen from the Sigma and Tamron. My view on this is that really, you're shooting with Pentax, and Pentax glass is legendary. Tamron and Sigma glass just doesn't seem to have the same magic to my eyes. The 80-200 also gets sharper when zoomed which is unheard of for zooms like this.

The FA* does scream paparazzi though. it's front element and size is large. The 50-135 is almost certainly where you would want to start, and then learn if you need the additional reach. Both my missus @DrJulie and I shoot, so it makes sense for us to have two lenses of similar ranges, so we've got both. If I was going to sell one (which I'm not), I would sell the 50-135 and keep the 80-200. It's more versatile to my shooting habits. @DrJulie would feel the opposite. She's say the 80-200 is too big and heavy for her.

Really though, with the 2 DA* 2.8 zooms, there's not much you couldn't accomplish.
11-05-2011, 02:57 PM   #26
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
DA* 55, DA 12-24, DA* 50-135.

---in my amateur opinion.
04-17-2012, 10:15 AM   #27
Junior Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: East Coast
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 33
Closure

I just thought I'd revive this old thread and see which direction the Op decided to go, so what, if any, was your decision?
04-17-2012, 10:31 AM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,264
QuoteOriginally posted by filthy58 Quote
Sorry to post and shoot through.......the real job that pays for the hobby got frantic.

There's some great advice in the replies, really appreciate it. I probably should have pointed out that we're not rank amateurs, having done sports photography as a sideline for about 5 years, and a couple of weddings with a pro......so maybe "not yet a pro and dangerous" might be a better category.

I noticed a few people recommended the 50-135mm. I gather from the review that this equates to the 70mm-200mm in 35mm? Just so I can get a reference, how would that relate to the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 I have now?

Given I have the above, and the 50mm prime, would the Pentax SMC DA 16-50mm f2.8 ED AL IF SDM be a better purchase at this stage?
the advantage to the 50-135 is the extra 20 mm at the wide end are of far more use than the extra 65 at the long end on your sigma when shooting weddings, the 16-50 may come up short (the 50-70 range is very useful for me anyway). rather than duplicate zoom lengths you may want to look at the sigma 24-70 2.8 as well I own an older one and use it for events all the time a very useful lenght. add a fast 50 and maybe a 77 ltd or fa 85 for portraits and you are pretty much covered (24 should be wide enough in most cases for group shots but if you are worried about it pick up the Pentax 12-24 or the sigma 10-24 3.5)
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, magnification, pentax lens, question, reason, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K-7, a pro camera at an amateur price? Student Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 01-05-2011 04:51 AM
Misc Amateur-Beginner AArias22 Post Your Photos! 14 06-27-2010 05:38 AM
pro vs. amateur mattdm Photographic Technique 85 06-17-2009 05:59 AM
Is this a good low budget lighting kit for an amateur? shaolin95 Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 9 11-15-2008 02:16 AM
Transitioning from zooms to primes heatherslightbox Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 29 10-02-2008 04:56 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:58 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top