[Atlantic]

Hello all

I am going to buy the Pentax 12-24mm or the Sigma 10-20mm.

- If I was only going to shoot landscapes and buildings, I would go for the 10-20 mm.

But what about for weddings, people, etc, which one is better for that? Maybe the 12-24 is more "realistic", when it comes to colors and "realness"?

[aleonx3]

my 2-cents... the 24mm end is more useful than the 20mm end for wedding photography when you are often much closer to the action - my preference is in the 18-70mm range.

[miltona580]

You're going to get perspective distortion with a focal length that small if you're not careful with composition. You might want to keep that in mind.

[interested_observer]

As miltona580 related, the distortion in the 12-24, especially the Pentax (as compared to the Sigma and Tamron 12-24) is controlled a bit better. You might also want to look in to post processing utilities that apply lens corrections to help in this matter. The image along the edges will be pulled as compared to the center. This will be more prevalent and noticeable in the people at the extreme edges, and become less as you extend into the center. That is just the fact of life in terms of optical design. The Pentax DA 12-24 (along with the Tokina 12-24 - same design) does a better job.

[elho_cid]

If DA*16-50 is not wide enough than the DA14 may suit you. In a wedding or other report coverage you may appreciate the f2,8 and what I like about it is the 90° diagonal. It is easy to visualize the photo to take, so composition is easier than with the zoom. It is faster - you already know whot you will exactly shoot when you raise your camera.

[Docrwm]

Went through this process a year ago myself and selected the Tamron 10-24. It's get a better track record than the Sigma for QC issues, has a longer warranty, has the range at both ends of the other two lenses, and is less expensive with the rebates in place. I'd consider it.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/169290-wide-an...10-24mm-2.html

[RioRico]

Went through this process a year ago myself and selected the Tamron 10-24. It's get a better track record than the Sigma for QC issues, has a longer warranty, has the range at both ends of the other two lenses, and is less expensive with the rebates in place. I'd consider it.

What he said. But I'll also argue that UWA isn't for landscapes nor weddings. 16-45 is a good landscape range. 28-75 is a good wedding range. 50-135 is a good portraiture range. Yes, any subject can be shot with any focal length. But work outside these customary ranges must be carefully planned; distances and angles can trip you up. The reason these focal ranges are customary is all about distance, and thus perspective. Generally, the wider the lens, the closer you must be to the subject. Keep that in mind when matching lenses to applications. Good luck!

[Atlantic]

Thanks all

Now I'm a bit confused... Maybe none of the two lenses are suitable for weddings?

Let's see... What would you all in all recommend for this: Wedding inside the church.
- And outside, and with a large group of people...?

Maybe the Pentax 50-135mm, Pentax 55-300mm and the 14mm? I think I need a very good and strong zoom?

- I thought the two lenses would be good for that. - But maybe they are just for landscapes and bulidings.....


I allready have Pentax 18-55, 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.7.

Thanks for the answers so far.

[Canada_Rockies]

I suspect the f/1.4 will be extremely useful in those cases where flash photography is frowned upon. I am personally of the opinion that all flashes in the church service should be banned, and that only photographers approved by the bride and groom be allowed to carry cameras into the church service. Many years ago, I photographed a wedding where the only in church pictures were by me from the "cry room" on the balcony. Pentax KX (film model!) on tripod with A 70-210/4 with Ilford SP-1 film were the saviours of the day. The minister was (correctly) adamant that the in church service was all about the bride, the groom, and God.

As to the original question, I would be very careful with short zoom lenses. The DA 12-24 is as well corrected as any lens in that focal range that I've had the opportunity to view, and using DxO as your raw converter will correct any lens flaws, but the perspective distortion will still be there. The biggest of these is group pictures where the edges result in very unflattering people on the two sides. It is unavoidable, not being caused by anything but the angles and distance differences from centre to edge of your image.

[westmill]

The tamron 17-50mm is without doubt your best bet as an all round lens suitable for landscape and weddings.
My second choice, would be the the pentax 17-70 f4. The 17-70 is without question the best all round performer of pentax world even though you lose a stop in speed.
If you need to zoom in even more, you can crop quite easily, but you cant crop backwards if you cant fit everything in your frame.

[Bob from Aus]

Sorry, I have had bad feedback from clients when I have used ultra wide angle lenses. 10-20 zooms are dangerous animals in weddings and working for clients. The corner distortions at 10mm towards the corners when there are people in them is ugly. I suspect the locations where you might want to use it is likely to have people's anatomy in the corners making their body parts look like they have been given the steam roller treatment.

I no longer use this lens for any clients. I find my clients are happy and often delighted with the use of my 10 mm sigma fisheye. There is a preference for curved distortion that provides an intimate feeling compared with spread out edges.

Unless you really understand what you want to achieve with an ultra wide angle (as apposed to a fisheye) it should not go anywhere near a wedding. I am afraid all I can see is someone getting a slab of ugly photos of their wedding that they will hate.

[Atlantic]

I sure gonna get that Tamron 17-50mm. It looks very good and suitable for weddings etc. That will be my next buy, then the 10-20 and 12-24 gotta wait. - Maybe that's too risky for a weddding.

Any more suggestions are more than welcome.

[jatrax]

I do not think the 10mm or 12mm end is very useful for weddings except possibly for large group shots, and here the distortion becomes a problem. The problem is you need to be too close and a big part of wedding photography is getting everything recorded without being in the road, as much as possible. Last wedding I shot was with a DA*16-50, A 50 f/1.4 and the DA 55-300. If I did weddings regularly I would replace the 55-300 with a 70-200 f/2.8 or the DA*50-135 because 55-300 is just too slow for in the church. As noted above something in 70 or 75mm range at the long end would be ideal.

The 17-70 f/4 paired with a 70-200 f/2.8 for example would make a good kit. Add a fast 50 f/1.4 and maybe the DA 14 or a fish-eye for special shots and you are good. It is a lot of work carrying too much gear around all day so go as light as you can.

Also, think about your lighting, I frown on flash during the ceremony but the family and other shots afterward should be lit correctly. Best to use a softbox or umbrella and some real lights if you have them.

[Atlantic]

Ok... So this is the list for weddings:

Pentax 50mm 1.4
Sigma 70-200mm
Tamron 17-70mm

And then Pentax 18-55mm and a softbox

Thanks a lot.

[elho_cid]

you need to put a gap between 2 lenses somewhere. making it at 50-70 may work well for you.