[Eigengrau]

One thing to consider is that many wedding photographs don't necessarily need to be razor sharp, so a slight softness might actually be a positive thing.

I've definitely seen portraits that are too sharp - nobody likes to see their wrinkles in blistering detail - but it seems to me that it's better to start with a sharp image. You can always add a flattering (and selective) blur in post processing.

And that's just the thing - sharpness is kind of a one-way road. It's easy to get rid of, but extremely difficult to create out of nothing. When using a soft lens, you are getting rid of information that you can never retrieve. It can really hurt when you'd like to crop, make enlargements, or otherwise demand more from your gear.

[CWyatt]

But I have been thinking about the 17-50, yes it gives me the wide aperture but I already have an 18-55, which gives me more of less the same range but with a smaller aperture! So if I just get the flash on that 18-55 I will be fine (except in situation where I can't use the flash, then I will have to figure out something else!!). So I'd rather spend money and get a lens that is going to give a range that I don't already have, so I am leaning more towards the 28-75 now. Does that make sense?

I don't mean to be rude, but I really think you should consider not doing weddings until you get some more photographic learning under your belt (If you're already doing weddings and the clients are happy then all power to you). I've never shot a wedding but I know it can be quite a pressure environment for a photographer. Trying to 'figure out something else' when you're at a wedding as the pro photographer wouldn't be a good situation to be in. While the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 is a really decent kit lens - it is a kit lens. It's slow and not terribly sharp (especially at 18mm on my copy). There's no way I'd consider using it if I was hired as a pro photographer for a wedding. And while it's true the photographer matters much more than the gear, for this kind of job I think it's important to have the gear - as well as the knowledge and skills to use it.

[creoleart]

I understand what you mean. Now there are two reasons why I jumped into the wedding adventure this way. First it was a favor to a friend, who is perfectly well aware of my inexperience in that field and second doing it this way was my desperate attempt at being able to photograph a wedding. Because up to this point I had not been able to find ONE single photographer who was willing to take me along and assist them so that I could learn from them!! It is only after I accepted the challenge from my friend that I found someone to take me along with them on their wedding shoot. So that is the only practice I am going to have before my first wedding as the main photographer.

Having said that, I am not too worried about pleasing my friend, I know I will have some decent shots for her that she will be happy with, especially after PP, but I always have to set the bar pretty high and feel like I have to deliver the first time around, so that I will have a strong foundation for potential future clients. Which is rare I am sure, even to the most experienced photographer! But I have to learn the hard way, that goes for everything, what can I say?!! It is do or die with me, it is pretty bad!

So the outcome will be interesting to say the least, because like this was not bad enough, two more people came to me after hearing that I finally decided to do weddings, and want me to shoot theirs!! So August 22nd is going to be a very important day in my life as a photographer...hence the acute bridezilla syndrome!!

[CWyatt]

Whichever lens you get I would recommend getting to know it well before the wedding. You don't want to shoot everything at f/1.8 and realise the depth of field was too shallow or it's front or back focusing.

[creoleart]

Will do, thank you!