If you HAD to use ONE lens to shoot a wedding...

edl · 12-02-2008, 11:06 PM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

If I was getting paid to do a wedding and was limited to ONE lens & ONE body, I'd borrow my friend's 5D + 24-105L.

In Pentax land I'd choose the Tamron 28-75 2.8. But honestly, I would insist on the following setup:

Body 1 - DA*16-50 2.8
Body 2 - Tamron 28-75 or DA*50-135.

At least one flash, ideally an assistant for off-camera flash. Laptop. Extra batteries and cards.

After all, you're getting paid - and you really shouldn't screw this up.

nulla · 12-03-2008, 12:36 AM

DA* 16-50 2.8

Great Lens

xtriky · 12-03-2008, 05:25 AM

I would say DA* 16-50. However she has a *istDL, it seems like we are wasting money on the SDM if buying the DA*. So the Tamron/Sigma 17-50 should be a proper choice.

audiobomber · 12-03-2008, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by ashamsuddin

I want to get her a good quality lens that she can use to get some great shots, but I can only afford one right now.

Right now she has the kit lens (18-55) and a Sigma 70-200 (f 4-???) - on a *istDL

We know that she needs something with a lower F stop, but what focal range does she need?

I know she'll eventually need two cameras, a few lenses, blah, blah, blah.

But for now, which one lens should I invest in?

Get a good flash for the kit lens and buy an FA 50mm 1.4 for the formal portraits. Learning to use the flash well will take some time. Wedding photographers know better than to strictly rely on natural light and fast lenses.

**Kerrowdown** · 12-03-2008, 01:29 PM

I would suggest as others here have already, a fast 50mm prime, either f1:1.4 or f1:1.7 or for extra luxury f1:1.2.

These are all a joy to use and will give fantastic results, when stopped down a couple of stops.

TourDeForce · 12-03-2008, 02:50 PM

The extra reach is overrated in most wedding situations.

Personally, I almost always shoot wide and crop. Gives you a lot of creative latitude for the finished product. You'll have the option to crop left, right, zoom, ... whatever. You'd be stunned at how often you can take a blah picture and turn it into a WOW! photograph with a little creative rotation and cropping. I get a lot of 'How'd you do that?' reactions.

walter · 12-03-2008, 03:03 PM

If I was taking photos for myself, I'd bring a fast 50 (FA50 f/1.4).
If I was taking pictures for the bride and groom, I'd bring a 2.8 zoom (Tamron 17-50 f/2.8) and a flash.

leok · 12-04-2008, 01:08 AM

Tamron 17-50 2.8

You WILL miss a few shots if you can't go wider than 28... there is usually at least one cramped spot

However you can crop or zoom with your feet (step forward) to make up for not having 75mm...

devisor · 12-04-2008, 04:58 AM

for just one lens.. I would sa da*16-50, if the copy is good.
You newer know how the weahter is, and there is allways good images to capture when they go out.

I'm no pro, but I have shoot a wedding before.. and will newer ever do a wedding again with just one camera.

So now I got 2 K20D..

good luck

farfisa · 12-04-2008, 08:19 AM

Sounds like people are pointing towards the wide end--if the Tamron 17-50 has output as nice as the 28-75, you could save a ton vs. the DA* 16-50.

The famous Prodigital2000 has 3 of them for $299US (each

) obo right now:

NEW TAMRON AF 17-50mm XR F/2.8 Di II LENS PENTAX K20D - (eBay.ca item 310105699056 end time 01-Jan-09 14:06:07 EST)

They'll probably take $270, so I'd start with an offer. Less than half of the DA*16-50.

I was thinking the 28-75 because I like the long end not so much for the reach, but for the foreshortening for portraits.

jeffrey r · 12-04-2008, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by farfisa

They'll probably take $270, so I'd start with an offer. Less than half of the DA*16-50.

Prodigital accepted my offer of $270 US for the 17-50, so you should be good to go. I think their rule of thumb is generally 10% off the listed price. I used a 15% ebay/paypal coupon as well, so it was a nice deal (under $250, including shipping to the US). I got mine yesterday--it's a very nice lens, very much like my Tamron 28-75, but more compact and lighter.

Photomy · 12-04-2008, 02:40 PM

I own 16-45 and would recommend more speed. I have seen very good tests of Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens but do not own it YET. 16 vs. 17 no big deal for a wedding and weather sealing not as big a deal either for wedding. If Pentax 16-50 2.8 had a little better optics, I would vote for it. Both would be very good for wedding.

kenyee · 12-04-2008, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by TourDeForce

You'd be stunned at how often you can take a blah picture and turn it into a WOW! photograph with a little creative rotation and cropping.

I second that. I was 2nd shooter for my brother's wedding and the originals were ehhh because I'm more into landscapes (I warned him I'm not a wedding photog and would not be "in" the wedding if I did this but he wanted extra coverage for the wedding). They liked the coffee table photobook I did for them after cropping, etc. the photos. Most ended up being cropped quite a bit for better impact.
The photos were done using a Sigma 17-70 mostly at f/5.6 (flash of course) and I popped on a 50/1.4 for some low light church photos and a 10-20 for the big family group photos and interior photos when picking up the bride (tiny cramped house where 17 wasn't wide enough).

RBellavance · 12-04-2008, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by TourDeForce

The extra reach is overrated in most wedding situations.

Originally posted by leok

You WILL miss a few shots if you can't go wider than 28... there is usually at least one cramped spot

However you can crop or zoom with your feet (step forward) to make up for not having 75mm...

My very limited experience as official wedding photographer (only 2 weddings as a favor to friends, and it will likely stop there

) agrees with both these statements.

I shot almost everything with a 17-55mm f/2.8 lens. In my case, using a longer lens would mostly have mean more room for other people to get between me and my subjects (except at the church, but even there 55mm very seldom felt too short).

I'd suggest the Tamron 17-50/2.8 on one body (+flash & diffuser), and the FA77/1.8 on a 2nd one if you can.

My "ideal wedding lens" on APS-C would probably be a 17-70mm f/2.8. Although I might find it a tad heavy

cwood · 12-04-2008, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Buddha Jones

I agree... the Tamron 28-75mm is a great lens!

Agreed... Tamron 28-75 is the one to have if you only have one. Rarely at a wedding do you need to go as wide as 16mm but the extra length out to 75 (instead of 50mm) is quite handy. Plus its a beautiful lens.

Still... I can't imagine doing a whole wedding with only one lens or one body but each location dictates your requirements. I shot a whole wedding at 300mm once with very nice results (film).

12-03-2008, 05:25 AM	#33
xtriky Junior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Norman, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 46	I would say DA* 16-50. However she has a istDL, it seems like we are wasting money on the SDM if buying the DA. So the Tamron/Sigma 17-50 should be a proper choice. Last edited by xtriky; 12-03-2008 at 10:02 AM.

12-04-2008, 02:40 PM	#42
Photomy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 174	Tamron 17-50 2.8 I own 16-45 and would recommend more speed. I have seen very good tests of Tamron 17-50 2.8 lens but do not own it YET. 16 vs. 17 no big deal for a wedding and weather sealing not as big a deal either for wedding. If Pentax 16-50 2.8 had a little better optics, I would vote for it. Both would be very good for wedding. Last edited by Photomy; 12-04-2008 at 02:45 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
First Wedding Shoot	Timtast1c	Post Your Photos!	7	07-06-2009 01:52 PM
My first wedding shoot	tcdk	Post Your Photos!	7	09-08-2008 08:46 AM
wedding shoot	vincentgargano	Photographic Technique	15	05-06-2008 07:04 AM
A few from my first wedding shoot.	NLAlston	Post Your Photos!	9	08-14-2007 03:42 PM
First Wedding Shoot	qdoan	Post Your Photos!	8	08-14-2007 02:15 PM

12-02-2008, 11:06 PM	#31
edl Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Francisco Posts: 457	Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. If I was getting paid to do a wedding and was limited to ONE lens & ONE body, I'd borrow my friend's 5D + 24-105L. In Pentax land I'd choose the Tamron 28-75 2.8. But honestly, I would insist on the following setup: Body 1 - DA16-50 2.8 Body 2 - Tamron 28-75 or DA50-135. At least one flash, ideally an assistant for off-camera flash. Laptop. Extra batteries and cards. After all, you're getting paid - and you really shouldn't screw this up.

12-03-2008, 12:36 AM	#32
nulla Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 1,560	DA* 16-50 2.8 Great Lens

12-03-2008, 09:27 AM	#34
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by ashamsuddin I want to get her a good quality lens that she can use to get some great shots, but I can only afford one right now. Right now she has the kit lens (18-55) and a Sigma 70-200 (f 4-???) - on a *istDL We know that she needs something with a lower F stop, but what focal range does she need? I know she'll eventually need two cameras, a few lenses, blah, blah, blah. But for now, which one lens should I invest in? Get a good flash for the kit lens and buy an FA 50mm 1.4 for the formal portraits. Learning to use the flash well will take some time. Wedding photographers know better than to strictly rely on natural light and fast lenses.

12-03-2008, 01:29 PM	#35
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,818	I would suggest as others here have already, a fast 50mm prime, either f1:1.4 or f1:1.7 or for extra luxury f1:1.2. These are all a joy to use and will give fantastic results, when stopped down a couple of stops.

12-03-2008, 02:50 PM	#36
TourDeForce Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 514	The extra reach is overrated in most wedding situations. Personally, I almost always shoot wide and crop. Gives you a lot of creative latitude for the finished product. You'll have the option to crop left, right, zoom, ... whatever. You'd be stunned at how often you can take a blah picture and turn it into a WOW! photograph with a little creative rotation and cropping. I get a lot of 'How'd you do that?' reactions.

12-03-2008, 03:03 PM	#37
walter Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 239	If I was taking photos for myself, I'd bring a fast 50 (FA50 f/1.4). If I was taking pictures for the bride and groom, I'd bring a 2.8 zoom (Tamron 17-50 f/2.8) and a flash.

12-04-2008, 01:08 AM	#38
leok New Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 19	Tamron 17-50 2.8 You WILL miss a few shots if you can't go wider than 28... there is usually at least one cramped spot However you can crop or zoom with your feet (step forward) to make up for not having 75mm...

12-04-2008, 04:58 AM	#39
devisor Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,470	for just one lens.. I would sa da*16-50, if the copy is good. You newer know how the weahter is, and there is allways good images to capture when they go out. I'm no pro, but I have shoot a wedding before.. and will newer ever do a wedding again with just one camera. So now I got 2 K20D.. good luck

12-04-2008, 08:19 AM	#40
farfisa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,274	Sounds like people are pointing towards the wide end--if the Tamron 17-50 has output as nice as the 28-75, you could save a ton vs. the DA* 16-50. The famous Prodigital2000 has 3 of them for $299US (each ) obo right now: NEW TAMRON AF 17-50mm XR F/2.8 Di II LENS PENTAX K20D - (eBay.ca item 310105699056 end time 01-Jan-09 14:06:07 EST) They'll probably take $270, so I'd start with an offer. Less than half of the DA*16-50. I was thinking the 28-75 because I like the long end not so much for the reach, but for the foreshortening for portraits.

12-04-2008, 08:40 AM	#41
jeffrey r Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 337	Originally posted by farfisa They'll probably take $270, so I'd start with an offer. Less than half of the DA*16-50. Prodigital accepted my offer of $270 US for the 17-50, so you should be good to go. I think their rule of thumb is generally 10% off the listed price. I used a 15% ebay/paypal coupon as well, so it was a nice deal (under $250, including shipping to the US). I got mine yesterday--it's a very nice lens, very much like my Tamron 28-75, but more compact and lighter.

12-04-2008, 03:28 PM	#43
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Originally posted by TourDeForce You'd be stunned at how often you can take a blah picture and turn it into a WOW! photograph with a little creative rotation and cropping. I second that. I was 2nd shooter for my brother's wedding and the originals were ehhh because I'm more into landscapes (I warned him I'm not a wedding photog and would not be "in" the wedding if I did this but he wanted extra coverage for the wedding). They liked the coffee table photobook I did for them after cropping, etc. the photos. Most ended up being cropped quite a bit for better impact. The photos were done using a Sigma 17-70 mostly at f/5.6 (flash of course) and I popped on a 50/1.4 for some low light church photos and a 10-20 for the big family group photos and interior photos when picking up the bride (tiny cramped house where 17 wasn't wide enough).

12-04-2008, 05:04 PM	#44
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by TourDeForce The extra reach is overrated in most wedding situations. Originally posted by leok You WILL miss a few shots if you can't go wider than 28... there is usually at least one cramped spot However you can crop or zoom with your feet (step forward) to make up for not having 75mm... My very limited experience as official wedding photographer (only 2 weddings as a favor to friends, and it will likely stop there ) agrees with both these statements. I shot almost everything with a 17-55mm f/2.8 lens. In my case, using a longer lens would mostly have mean more room for other people to get between me and my subjects (except at the church, but even there 55mm very seldom felt too short). I'd suggest the Tamron 17-50/2.8 on one body (+flash & diffuser), and the FA77/1.8 on a 2nd one if you can. My "ideal wedding lens" on APS-C would probably be a 17-70mm f/2.8. Although I might find it a tad heavy

12-04-2008, 05:13 PM	#45
cwood Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: California Posts: 851	Originally posted by Buddha Jones I agree... the Tamron 28-75mm is a great lens! Agreed... Tamron 28-75 is the one to have if you only have one. Rarely at a wedding do you need to go as wide as 16mm but the extra length out to 75 (instead of 50mm) is quite handy. Plus its a beautiful lens. Still... I can't imagine doing a whole wedding with only one lens or one body but each location dictates your requirements. I shot a whole wedding at 300mm once with very nice results (film).