[cwood]

I often use the 28-75 on my Canon 1DmkIII (which has a 1.3x crop factor) for weddings over my expensive "L" zooms. It is a very nice lens however it took me a couple of attempts to get a good one. The first one was "off" in almost every way you could screw up a lens. Now that I have a good copy I think it is fantastic and use that along with a Pentax system which will have the 50-135, 43ltd or 12-24.

The worst thing about the Tammy is it is unbelievably slow to focus. Its a little funny to watch that big expensive Canon camera struggle to turn the focus on that lens Everything else is just great.

[deadwolfbones]

I just picked up a Tamron 28-75 for quite cheap on eBay. Keep an eye out and you'll find a good deal. I may even be reselling mine here soon, since I also have the Sigma 17-70 on the way.

[creoleart]

Thanks guys! I will be watching for that good deal!

[5teve]

dont forget that sigma do a 28-70 f2.8 ex lens.. i picked mine up for a reasonable $270 AUD mint in box its not a bad lens at all.. (now im used to the camera and lens combo!)

the one thing i will say is that the DF version i have with the push pull clutch is HUGE! 77mm dia filter size and quite weighty!

i beleive they do another version that is a bit smaller and newer that seems to go for less $$'s in the US. have a look through the lens review database and see what people say!

Thanks

Steve

[Rayenna]

I can see your dilemma--as many have already said, having the 2.8 for the full length of the lens will be an asset for weddings. If you decide to go with the 28-75, then hopefully that will work for you.

I'm going to preface the next few comments with the fact that I am not in any way a professional photographer, so you're welcome to ignore them if you wish. I shot my first wedding at the end of March this year, and the only reason I did so was because good friends of mine asked me to do so for them. I had done some engagement shots for them last year and they loved them so much that, to save some money, they asked me to do the wedding for them also. Although we are good friends, I made sure that I made it clear before I went ahead that I wasn't a pro, and that there was the possibility that I might not get all the shots they wanted--not that I was expecting to let them down, but I just wanted to make sure that expectations were realistic.

So. We went ahead. I did a LOT of research. I purchased some new gear. I got some advice from a Pro I knew. Here is what I used:

Pentax K100D body (x2--I managed to find one to borrow for the day)
Pentax 50mm f1.4
Sigma 17-70 Macro
Metz 48 AF-1 flash
Lightsphere universal

Inside the auditorium of the church, having that flash with the bounce and swivel was a godsend--I kept the flash on the body with the 17-70, and the 50 managed fine without it. I had someone else helping me on the day, so I didn't have to be in five places at once. I know the building I was shooting in very well, and I had lots of opportunities beforehand to practice with the flash at different times of day. I had seen photos taken by pros at weddings in the same building in the past, and quite honestly they often didn't turn out well at all. So I knew the challenges, but having that flash made the difference for me in the building.

Would I have liked to have a constant 2.8 aperture? Absolutely. But I didn't have the budget for it, and having the flash made up a little for that lack--I got the shots I needed in the auditorium, and having the wide angle WAS helpful because I managed to get a shot of the whole stage and bridal party during the service (unfortunately my second shooter also ended up in that shot, so I had to do some creative cropping). I utilised the wide angle function of the lens where needed, and the macro function was great for detail shots.

The point? The Sigma worked fine for me, because I made it work. I used the flash to assist. I took an equal amount on each camera. The 50 was indispensable and took better photos, but the Sigma did the job I set it to also. If the lack of wide aperture is, for you, a problem, by all means change your lens. But I do believe the Sigma is not a terrible lens for a wedding--if you're happy to work with its strengths. In the end, my clients were very happy with the photos--which is the most important part, really.

Would I do another wedding? Probably not in a hurry. But I DID learn a lot from the experience. It made me appreciate my gear, and aim to use it to its full capacity. I know I still have plenty to learn--browsing this forum reminds me of that, constantly--but I'm going to make sure that as I learn, I have fun along the way. Photography will probably never be my job, and that's fine with me. I just love being able to take photos that people enjoy--and that I enjoy taking.

(PS. If you'd like me to post some photos from the Sigma, I can do so--tomorrow, when I have a little more time to upload them.)

[little laker]

I haven't read what everyone is saying, however I wanted to add my $0.02 worth.

If your after Image Quality then the Sigma is the way to go. At the price I don't think anything can touch it.

However, if your not looking at Image Quality then it's probably a waste on your camera.

[creoleart]

I am always after Image quality! I am glad to hear that the sigma does the job there.

Thank you Rayenna for your input. I really don't like using my flash unless I absolutely have to, and that is probably why I am tempted to trade in my 17-70 for a constant 2.8. Having said that, I am learning to get out that flash more and use it more often and once I am more comfortable with that, that sigma would work just fine for me. I am just not there yet. But like you pointed out, you were able to get the whole stage with bridal party with your 17 and I would really like to get those shots and I won't get as much with a 24-70. But the 24-70 would give me the aperture I need. I guess I can always use my 18-55 for a shot of the whole party.

I did find a Sigma 24-70 for $569 which is on the higher end of my budget so now I am wondering whether I should just do that or rent the 16-50 for the upcoming wedding to see how I do with it and just save to get it since it was the lens I was primarily after to begin with but was not ready to pay what they ask for it.

The wedding I am shooting is for friends so I did warned them about the fact that I had never shot a wedding before, so their expectations are not very high. I am confident however with my post processing abilities and know that I can have some very good photos after I am done processing them but I still want them to be good to begin with.

So I don't know I keep going back and forth! The 24-70 seems really good, I have read good reviews about it, but I really like the wide angle that the 17 gives me!!! But for a wedding, maybe I can get those shots with my 18-55. It might not look as good but then again those shots are not as important as shots of the bride and groom anyway, so I'd better focus on them and what lens will give me great results on those.

What I really should do is make it work with what I do have (that is what my husband tells me ALL THE TIME. lol!!!), but I do want to deliver on that first wedding! I want to do a good enouhg job so that more people will come to me to do theirs, so those photos from that first wedding had better look fantastic!! If they look plain, or if you can tell that I was trying to "make it work", it might just be the end of that road for me. You know what I mean?

[bdery]

The Sigma is a very reliable lens. I love mine. I own a F50/1,7, a 50 macro, and a vivitar series 1 70-210 (all considered amazing lenses) and I'm not ashamed to use my Sigma most of the time.

The limited maximum aperture can be a problem inside in some situations, but a good flash will help a lot. Plus you can push the ISO a bit The 28-75 is an intuitive choice for weddings, but you do loose the wide possibilities.

I think the 17-70, Pentax 50-135, and possibly your 50 make a killer combo for weddings. When the Sigma starts closing too much, switch to the 50-135

[little laker]

I am always after Image quality! I am glad to hear that the sigma does the job there.

That's good to hear. I'm not slamming the kit lens. It's great for what it is, however it just can't compare to the Sigma.

I did find a Sigma 24-70 for $569 which is on the higher end of my budget so now I am wondering whether I should just do that or rent the 16-50 for the upcoming wedding to see how I do with it and just save to get it since it was the lens I was primarily after to begin with but was not ready to pay what they ask for it.

It's an incredible lens, I have one for my Sigma SD14, and love it.
However there are times when I wish I had gotten the 17 - 70 instead.

The wedding I am shooting is for friends so I did warned them about the fact that I had never shot a wedding before, so their expectations are not very high. I am confident however with my post processing abilities and know that I can have some very good photos after I am done processing them but I still want them to be good to begin with.

My first wedding was a piece of cake. For that mater every wedding I've shot was.
However I was just a backup in the first, taking the pressure off.
I'm sure that you'll do fine.

maybe I can get those shots with my 18-55.

That's what I did, however there's an alternative you might prefer.
The Sigma 24-70 is a full frame lens. Since you'll want a back-up camera for the wedding anyways why not look into a 35mm film camera.
Then you'll have the wide angle covered with the lens.


No lens can ever make up for proper lighting. So I would strongly suggest that you take some time out with the flash, and have some fun.
Basic Flash Photography really isn't that hard to learn, and can make the difference between a stunning photo and a mediocre picture.

[creoleart]

Great advice you guys. Thanks!! I mean I have a fairly good flash... I think !!! I just need to learn its full potential! I have used natural light mostly up to this point and now that I am comfortable with that I need to move on to that next step and get out that flash more.

[bdery]

Just a note. I shot a friend's wedding as a guest, with the Sigma and a 50 (plus occasionnally my 134 manual) and according to my friend I have gotten more keepers than the pro. So you can pull it with the Sigma. Just use it well and understand its limitations.

[Das Boot]

What about a 70-200 2.8? They're great for candids.

[dreamnet]

I am happy with my Sigma 17-70

[opiedog]

i have the sigma 17-70 and it's better than the kit lens.

i'm also in the market for a constant 2.8, but i'm not sure if
the tamron 28-75 would be better (more reach, but less wide) than the 17-50.

don't know how much i'll be missing the 17mm-27 range on the 28-75 or the 51-75mm in the 17-50. with the 17-50, you can crop as for the 28-75 you can't crop what's not there.

i was hoping tokina would release their 16.5 to 135 for the k mount, but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen. then again, it also has variable aperture.

funny thing is that after doing all my research and looking at my style of shooting, i think i'll remain with my sigma 17-70 for a while.

save the $$ for the k-7

[philbaum]

Thanks guys! I will be watching for that good deal!

It sounds like you might get in the habit of doing weddings, so i definitely hold out for the F2.8 24/28 to 70 or 75mm lens combinations. I was doing photos for a theater group, and also took photos at my nephew's wedding (as a guest, not the pro) and found the F2.8 to be very useful.

I ended up getting the Pentax 50-135 F2.8 and love the lens and the F2.8 throughout. But its a bit big for crowded rooms (and spendy) If you can't get a Adorama Tamron 28 to 75, perhaps they have the Sigma variant you can get instead.