Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-29-2015, 02:58 PM   #1
Veteran Member
robjmitchell's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 1,455
Da*50-135 vs 77ltd + 100wr for wedding.

So I'm starting to get my kit together for shooting weddings, and I am tossing up whether to go with the obvious choice in the Da* 50-135 to pair with my 16-50 or instead choose the 77ltd to fill the gap below the 100wr.
pros of 50-135:- More flexibility and range, silent AF, happy with IQ
cons:- price (would only buy new) and weight.
pros of 77ltd:- Even better IQ, pixie dust, 500g lighter, can buy second hand, I like primes!
Cons:- will have to change lenses more often!

At some point I will difinately purchase the 77, I was going to go the 50-135 originally but I'm wondering if is really needed. I have not found I was lacking reach with 100wr so far, although I wouldn't want to take on clients in dimly lit no flash church settings.
I'm thinking I could start off with the 77, and if that doesn't work in the flexiblity stakes dip into my savings and get the 50-135 as well, although I am a little worried about the crashing aussie dollar pushing prices up soon.
Thoughts?

01-29-2015, 03:07 PM   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
wizofoz's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, Outer east.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,668
16-50 plus 50-135 would be the classic wedding set up, and what I would go for initially. The IQ of the longer zoom is nothing to be worried about. You already have the 100mm macro for details and to double as a long tele portrait lens ( personally I find it too clinically sharp for female portraits, but you may disagree). When finances can afford it, or when your resolve finally gives in to LBA, get the 77.

Do you have any flash modifiers to go with your 540? If I were to shoot weddings, (heaven help me!) I would be looking very seriously into my flash set up. Maybe even a small set of studio strobes that could be set up to do formal portraits. A kit with a couple of heads, brolly's, stands can be had new for around $900aus.

Last edited by wizofoz; 01-29-2015 at 03:14 PM.
01-29-2015, 03:10 PM   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 571
If you dont mind the af noise choose the FA77. The af speed of the DA* may be too dlow for weddings.
01-29-2015, 03:11 PM   #4
Veteran Member
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,519
DA*50-135mm for sure. You need to be quick at weddings and can miss shots if your too busy switching up lenses on the fly. Chances are the 50-135 will not leave your camera once you put it on. I only used my DA*16-50 for group shots when I didn't have the working distance required for the 50-135. Only time I used primes (43 and 77) were at the reception when I needed the added light capturing ability.

the DA*50-135 still is one lens that rarely if ever leaves my Pentax bag. My Pentax kit for the past year has been K3, DA*50-135, FA 31, FA 43, FA77, Fisheye. Going to add the 100mm Macro sooner or later...

---------- Post added 01-29-2015 at 03:12 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by howieb101 Quote
If you dont mind the af noise choose the FA77. The af speed of the DA* may be too dlow for weddings.
I personally disagree as I've never had a problem with the AF speed of that lens in any scenario, including weddings, except for auto-racing.

I do agree that it is slower than average though.

01-29-2015, 03:39 PM   #5
Veteran Member
robjmitchell's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 1,455
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by wizofoz Quote
16-50 plus 50-135 would be the classic wedding set up, and what I would go for initially. The IQ of the longer zoom is nothing to be worried about. You already have the 100mm macro for details and to double as a long tele portrait lens ( personally I find it too clinically sharp for female portraits, but you may disagree). When finances can afford it, or when your resolve finally gives in to LBA, get the 77.

Do you have any flash modifiers to go with your 540? If I were to shoot weddings, (heaven help me!) I would be looking very seriously into my flash set up. Maybe even a small set of studio strobes that could be set up to do formal portraits. A kit with a couple of heads, brolly's, stands can be had new for around $900aus.
Just got a second cactus flash and couple of controllers for Christmas. will be looking into more equip for that too.
01-29-2015, 03:48 PM   #6
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,812
DA 50-135 without doubt. That will be your work horse. The 77mm can be added later but you need the zoom. You already have the 100mm for if you want to use a prime but the 50-135 is well respected optically, the only complaints are about the SDM never the optics.
01-29-2015, 03:48 PM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Manteca, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,653
My wife shoots weddings, and we used to have the 50-135. We ended up getting rid of it in lieu of primes. But that just fits our particular style more than the 50-135.
01-29-2015, 04:07 PM   #8
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,183
Hey, Im just wondering, why would you need the 100mm WR? For closeups of rings and other objects? Wouldn't it make more sense to choose a 35mm macro instead, since it would also double as (almost) wide angle? And I know the DFA 100mm is a great lens, but for portraiture the FA 77mm should be better, due to its pixie dust - the DFA 100mm is super sharp (unflattering) and has almost no character (macro lenses usually don't).

Edit: Oh, and I think most of the wedding photographers on this forum use the 50-135mm lens. Weddings are the kind of place where you often need flexibility of zoom. You can't just run around constantly and switch primes every 5 min.

01-29-2015, 04:19 PM   #9
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 84
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
Edit: Oh, and I think most of the wedding photographers on this forum use the 50-135mm lens. Weddings are the kind of place where you often need flexibility of zoom. You can't just run around constantly and switch primes every 5 min.
Not unless you have 2 bodies: one with fast prime (77mm or 100mm), one with constant aperture zoom (16-50mm or 50-135mm).

If limited to one body, I'd also go for 50-135mm for flexibility...
01-29-2015, 04:29 PM - 1 Like   #10
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,183
Also, we sometimes get people who want to start weddings on these forums, and I usually just say to start as an apprentice. It helps a lot if you do a couple of these with someone who already knows what they are doing, who has the checklists and equipment. And the legal paperwork. As a wedding photographer, you can get sued if someone doesn't like their photo or if you missed a photo of that cousin or aunt and so on.
01-29-2015, 04:35 PM   #11
Veteran Member
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,519
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
Also, we sometimes get people who want to start weddings on these forums, and I usually just say to start as an apprentice. It helps a lot if you do a couple of these with someone who already knows what they are doing, who has the checklists and equipment. And the legal paperwork. As a wedding photographer, you can get sued if someone doesn't like their photo or if you missed a photo of that cousin or aunt and so on.
YUP!

Weddings are scary man. I think 2014 was my last summer doing weddings solo, period. Great pay days, but not worth the headaches. I want to enjoy what I'm doing. I see these seasoned weddings shooters who started for the art and are now just driven by money now. The art is "lost" on them, and they admit that. Weddings drag me down personally. But, being a second shooter for two years before taking on more solos was one of the best decisions I've ever made to get me the experience to shoot on my own.
01-29-2015, 04:50 PM   #12
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Blue Ridge Escarpment, North Carolina, US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,675
Possible alternative for the lens, if you can find it. Sigma 50-150 F 2.8 II EX DC APO HSM calibrated to your body by Sigma. Then read Na Horuk's reply over and over and over. Though after seeing Saturday wedding photo shoots in Treviso, Italy's piazza, Calgary's Chinese cultural center, downtown Vancouver and discussing it with a long time Alaskan pro shooting ceremonies on glaciers, I can't imagine the hard work and preparation needed to satisfy the clients. Best wishes on your endeavors.
01-29-2015, 05:46 PM - 1 Like   #13
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 12,892
You can't miss shots, Rob, so you'd want one body with the 16-50 and the other with the 50-135. You might be taking a shot of the bridesmaids getting ready then suddenly do an opportunistic shot of one of them.

You'd still pack a 77 or 70 or 85 or similar for set piece shots of details or individuals when timing isn't of the essence.

A tog I know here in Melbourne does weddings with Canons and a 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 plus the 85mm f1.2 in the bag.
01-29-2015, 07:04 PM   #14
Veteran Member
nicoprod's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Berlin, WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 519
You need the 77 over the 50-135 only if you want to isolate a full body and need to shoot f2 or wider. It's not necessarily true that the 77 is sharper, and it's not WR.
01-29-2015, 10:02 PM - 1 Like   #15
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,561
QuoteOriginally posted by dyoon153 Quote
If limited to one body, I'd also go for 50-135mm for flexibility...
If you only have one body, you should actually not shoot weddings. I would be highly upset if there wouldn't be photos of my wedding because of faulty equipment.
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!
100mm, af, bodies, body, combo, da*50-135, da*50-135 vs 77ltd, dfa, fa, fa77, iq, k-mount, kit, lens, lenses, macro, pentax, pentax lens, primes, pros, sections, shots, slr lens, tripod, vs 77ltd 100wr, wedding, weddings
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DA*16-50&DA*50-135 for event and wedding? ColiNiloK Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 02-04-2014 06:46 AM
Extreme Corner Performance Shootout - FA 43mm vs DA18-135 vs DA*50-135 chesebert Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 05-22-2012 09:38 AM
DA*50-135 and 77ltd vrrattko Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 06-17-2011 01:04 PM
DA* 16-50 vs DA* 50-135 for wedding lurchlarson Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 28 07-16-2009 11:02 AM
77ltd vs 50-135* Thoughts...? beaumont Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 61 11-02-2008 01:48 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:32 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