[skierd]

Sell the KR, buy a k-3, k3ii, k70, or KP as your new main camera, and put the K5ii as your backup.

I've shot a few weddings but for my type of shooting the fast tale-zoom was far more important to me than the wide. 50-135 f2.8 or the 70-200 f2.8 handles the receptions and most of the portraits. A 21mm ltd or 35mm could handle the wide stuff if you can think in primes.

Pre-owned, the sigma 17-50 is about the same price as the Tamron but is a better lens.

[Jonathan Mac]

I would say for weddings you're much better off with the Tamron. Build quality is not the highest but it's not bad, and the optics are very good indeed, What you need to look out for are the copies that mis-focus, so I would strongly recommend buying a copy you can use on your camera first, rather than buying online, unless the place where you buy it has an excellent returns/exchange policy.

I don't think f/3.5-5.6 can cut it for weddings, except for outdoors shots where you may find that the weather resistance is very helpful. Alamo5000's above shots look superb, but they're all wide angle shots that can mostly get away with longer shutter speeds, as the maximum aperture is variable I don't think that would work at the longer end of the focal range.

[bm75]

My 2 cents: 16-85 and for portraits/closeups an inexpensive 50 mm 1,8 . Otherwise the 35 ltd. You're done.

[TwoUptons]

When I did weddings on film, it was with a FA28-105, which is similar to the range of the 16-85. It worked well, but it really needed extra light to excel.

I would suggest the 16-85 plus at least one 'full-sized' flash if you don't already have one. Large groups will want more than that.

Even if you prefer natural light, balanced fill is your friend...

-Eric

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

I don't think f/3.5-5.6 can cut it for weddings, except for outdoors shots where you may find that the weather resistance is very helpful.

I haven't used the 16-86 but I tend to agree with Jonathan Mac about the aperture. I love using my 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 but indoors or in dim light I had to use high ISO to avoid motion blur with moving children. (Max aperture has already dropped to f/4.5 by 35mm, I would assume similar with the 16-85.) I got a Tamron 17-50 and the constant f/2.8 is a definite improvement indoors but I still prefer my 18-135 outside for the extra range and better focusing. I would say look at what you've shot in the past and if you're happy with what you've taken at f/3.5-5.6 or if you use flash then I think you're better off with the 16-85. If you're bothered by high ISO grain you should try a 17-50.

I later got a deal on a Sigma 17-50 so I've been able to compare directly with the Tamron. The Sigma wins for autofocus (quiet, a hair faster, and more consistent) and is slightly sharper (pixel peeping) but has some flare and exposure issues when you have bright light sources and dimly lit subjects like inside near a window (mostly correctable in post using raw files). There is a good PentaxForum review that goes into more detail about these two.

[Aeonflame]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I think I am able to fit both into my budget. Along with my fast primes, I should have everything covered.

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I think I am able to fit both into my budget. Along with my fast primes, I should have everything covered.

Sounds like a perfect solution!

After you've used both, we'd be happy to hear your opinions on the two. When I'm looking for lens advice it's nice to get feedback from people who have both lenses I'm considering and can give a direct comparison. I think this is a pair plenty of people will consider in the future.

[nosillec]

Buy a used DA*16-50 on Amazon. They often show up for around $500 and Amazon has a great return policy. It's a significantly better lens than the 16-85 or Tamron.

[bass3587]

If low light performance is a big issue then look for examples on here or even Flickr. You can usually check the EXIF data on most shots there. I've shot weddings with the Sigma 17-70 and Sigma 17-50 2.8 and i really like the 17-50 images but miss the longer reach..sometimes. For me having a quiet lens really makes a difference at weddings so from your choices the Pentax 16-85 may be the better choice. If you have to crank up the ISO just edit the noise out in post processing. I also use the Tamron 70-200 2.8 for most of the portraits I do at events and weddings. The sound of the screw drive isn't a factor there where the Sigma shines during the ceremony with it silent focusing.