[disingh]

Hi Experts,

I plan to go back to India and become a Wedding photographer. I have been reading a lot regarding DSLR's, I started with buying Oly initially, but have I made up my mind on Pentax K20D. Now I really need a good advice on suit of lenses and filters etc specifically keeping in mind Wedding photography.
So far I have been looking at Temron 18-250 and Pentax 50 mm. The reviews have been great for these 2 lens, but are they good enough for good wedding photography?
Regs,
Dips

PS. I also want to add that most Indian weddings take place in night and, ppl wear bright colors.

[Matthew Allen]

Hi Experts,

I plan to go back to India and become a Wedding photographer. I have been reading a lot regarding DSLR's, I started with buying Oly initially, but have I made up my mind on Pentax K20D. Now I really need a good advice on suit of lenses and filters etc specifically keeping in mind Wedding photography.
So far I have been looking at Temron 18-250 and Pentax 50 mm. The reviews have been great for these 2 lens, but are they good enough for good wedding photography?
Regs,
Dips

PS. I also want to add that most Indian weddings take place in night and, ppl wear bright colors.

I'm not an expert, but...

At night I think you would struggle with the relatively small maximum aperture of something like the Tamron. Don't forget that SR increases your ability to hand hold at slow speeds, but it doesn't make your subjects move any slower.

Also, although the 18-250 is generally well regarded (for a super zoom) its rendering pales in comparison with a nice prime or a shorter, more highly optimised zoom. In high pressure photography you really want a lens that doesn't come with too many compromises, making a consumer super zoom a less than ideal choice. The obvious choice in the Pentax system for a standard zoom would be the 16-50/2.8 and you'd probably want a longer zoom as well.

The 50mm (I'm guessing you mean the FA 50/1.4?) is a much-loved lens and would certainly come in handy, especially for shots of one or two people.

How many bodies are you buying? As a professional wedding photographer you'd want two as an absolute minimum (probably three or more as bodies will probably need servicing in time and you always need to have at least two for the wedding itself). Equipment failure will not fly as an excuse if you miss critical shots - it's your responsibility to make sure you have sufficient equipment to avoid screw-ups.

There are other smaller items to consider. You may well want a good flash (Pentax AF540FGZ, Metz 48 or 58 AF-1 etc.) and you'll need piles of batteries and memory cards to keep everything up and running. No doubt others will have more suggestions.

Matthew

[little laker]

I don't have much wedding experience, but I agree with what Matthew said,

For the one wedding I assisted with I used a Pentax 55mm f1.8 on my Pentax body, and a Sigma 24 - 70 f2.8 lens on my other body.
Both these lenses are considered as fast (f2.8 or smaller numbers) very good quality lenses.
And I couldn't have gotten some of the shots without that feature. Mostly because we weren't allowed to use flash during the ceremony.

A good flash made the rest a nice easy shoot.

[Wheatfield]

What you describe calls for faster lenses than the Tamron zoom. The 16-50/2.8 would be a good choice if you realy want a zoom, the 50/1.4 is a good choice for a portait lens, though I recently bought a Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 and I do think it is a better lens for portraiture. It is manual focus though, if that is important to you.
I am an old school zoom lens hater, so my choice of lenses for weddings (I've shot them for 35 years) is fast primes. On digital, my choice would be 31mm LTD (or 35mm f/2 if you are on a budget) as a standard lens, the 21mm LTD (slow, but good quality optics), or an FA 24mm f/2 if you can find one, the 50mm or 58mm 1.4, and the 77mm LTD (70mm LTD as second choice).
Note these are all relatively fast primes, except for at the short end, where there aren't really any good solutions available.
I don't really think zooms are a good choice, as they tend to make for lazy photography (standing in one spot and taking pictures rather than finding the best vantage point for the picture), but I tend to be disagreed with a lot on this, usually by less experienced photographers......
Also, zooms that change aperture as you zoom can play havoc with fill lfash ratios, the slow apertures can cause the AF to fall on it's face, and can force shutter speeds slow enough to allow subject movement to ruin pictures.
Also, I'd stay with one lens family. Don't be mixing brands. Pentax lenses all have very similar colour renditions, which will make for more homogenous photo albums that what you will get if you are changing from a Pentax to a Tamron.

[disingh]

Thanks Wheatfield, Laker and Allen. I get the point. Zoom is not really a good option, Primes are. Another important point which I get is, I must carry a 2nd camera as a backup. Thanks for mentioning that as well.

Regs,
Dips

[Matthew Allen]

Don't dismiss zooms outright, dismiss bad zooms. Don't forget that the majority of modern photojournalism (and wedding photography) is done with zooms - good ones are capable of producing outstanding images. That said, the Pentax system's most interesting lenses are its primes - Pentax is one of the only manufacturers doing anything interesting with their fixed-focal length lenses and the Limiteds are just lovely.

It's heresy to say it here, but I think as a commited Pentax shooter I have a right: Pentax would not be my first choice for wedding photography. Given a sufficiently large budget, I think the ideal wedding system would be based around 2 or 3 Nikon D3s. The D3 has the best combination of low light capability and all-out performance on the market - combine usable ISO 6400 with an f2.8 VR zoom and you have a formidable and highly versatile setup.

Matthew

[dopeytree]

The 17-70 SDM would be a perfect lens for the job, you'll need a flash too i'd suggest the 360 one just use it with the diffuser as a fill in to get rid of the shadows under the eyes. You won't really need a telephotos lens. I haven't needed one really I take the da 50-200 with me and use it for a bit of extra reach but that's because my base lens is the 16-45mm so if you had the 17-70 you'd have a bit of extra reach.

[disingh]

Don't dismiss zooms outright, dismiss bad zooms. Don't forget that the majority of modern photojournalism (and wedding photography) is done with zooms - good ones are capable of producing outstanding images. That said, the Pentax system's most interesting lenses are its primes - Pentax is one of the only manufacturers doing anything interesting with their fixed-focal length lenses and the Limiteds are just lovely.

It's heresy to say it here, but I think as a commited Pentax shooter I have a right: Pentax would not be my first choice for wedding photography. Given a sufficiently large budget, I think the ideal wedding system would be based around 2 or 3 Nikon D3s. The D3 has the best combination of low light capability and all-out performance on the market - combine usable ISO 6400 with an f2.8 VR zoom and you have a formidable and highly versatile setup.

Matthew

Thanks Matthew for the Nikon Advice, but I want to stick to Pentax, even though I own a Canon EOS, which is film based. I decided not to go with pop brands, as I dont want to pay little more, for a little extra brand value. D3 is expensive I feel, Even though I understand the fact that, choices of lens becomes better with these 2 bigger brands, but.. I want to take some calculated chances with Pentax. ( I guess it would be fun to overcome some limitations of Pentax, if any, by trying to be inovative and learn few tricks here and there..)
In short I find it painful to start the entire exercise of thinking about another brand except Pentax.
Thanks,
Dips

[jms698]

Hi Dips,
I'm not all that familiar wedding photography. Here are some pictures I short at a friend's Indian-style wedding. These were shot with an old Minolta A1 bridge camera that I've since replaced with a Pentax SLR. One good thing about Indian wedding photography is that no one tends to wear black (and white isn't all that common either), so you can get away with the smaller amount of dynamic range you get when you boost the ISO for low-light shots.

Two cameras are a must, yes.

For low-light photography you'll want as fast a lens as you can get. I don't think the Tamron 18-250mm you can considering is fast enough. Instead, I'd recommend going with the DA* f/2.8 zooms: 16-50mm and 50-135mm combo (one on each body). You could also go with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens, if you wanted to save some money and the weather sealing wasn't important to you. You won't need anything longer than 135mm unless you are very far away from the action, or there is a huge crowd that you need to shoot over (which, mind you, can happen if the whole extended family comes to the wedding , so bring a step ladder to the wedding ). You might also consider the various Pentax prime lenses, but you don't want to be caught changing lenses and miss the critical moment. Better to have slightly less high-quality pictures from a good zoom lens, than to miss a great candid photo opportunity because you had the wrong prime lens attached. That said, maybe you want to get one really, really (!) good prime lenses like the 77mm f/1.8 for the controlled portraits type shots.

It may seem a bit counter intuitive, but you might think about getting some neutral density filters. A wedding usually has some kind of agni-hotra yajna (fire sacrifice) and you can get some good long expose dramatic fire shots that a less skilled photographer will not be able to capture.

Oh yeah, and get a really good flash. Or better yet: several flashes that you can set up around the scene and remotely trigger. Or maybe that is getting too complex for you, if you are just starting out?

[christinelandon]

I'll second jms698's advice in all respects. The biggest advantages of his recommended lens combination (two fairly fast zooms) are the ability to work indoors at fast enough shutter speeds to keep subject motion from producing lots of blur, and the ability to adjust composition (framing, especially) at moments when you can't move about, or move quickly enough (the one real drawback to shooting primes in this sort of setting). Good luck on your professional venture!

[disingh]

Hi Dips,
I'm not all that familiar wedding photography. Here are some pictures I short at a friend's Indian-style wedding. These were shot with an old Minolta A1 bridge camera that I've since replaced with a Pentax SLR. One good thing about Indian wedding photography is that no one tends to wear black (and white isn't all that common either), so you can get away with the smaller amount of dynamic range you get when you boost the ISO for low-light shots.

Two cameras are a must, yes.

For low-light photography you'll want as fast a lens as you can get. I don't think the Tamron 18-250mm you can considering is fast enough. Instead, I'd recommend going with the DA* f/2.8 zooms: 16-50mm and 50-135mm combo (one on each body). You could also go with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens, if you wanted to save some money and the weather sealing wasn't important to you. You won't need anything longer than 135mm unless you are very far away from the action, or there is a huge crowd that you need to shoot over (which, mind you, can happen if the whole extended family comes to the wedding , so bring a step ladder to the wedding ). You might also consider the various Pentax prime lenses, but you don't want to be caught changing lenses and miss the critical moment. Better to have slightly less high-quality pictures from a good zoom lens, than to miss a great candid photo opportunity because you had the wrong prime lens attached. That said, maybe you want to get one really, really (!) good prime lenses like the 77mm f/1.8 for the controlled portraits type shots.

It may seem a bit counter intuitive, but you might think about getting some neutral density filters. A wedding usually has some kind of agni-hotra yajna (fire sacrifice) and you can get some good long expose dramatic fire shots that a less skilled photographer will not be able to capture.

Oh yeah, and get a really good flash. Or better yet: several flashes that you can set up around the scene and remotely trigger. Or maybe that is getting too complex for you, if you are just starting out?

Hare Krishna Jms698,

I love the pic's you posted. Thanks for the nice tips. bty which camera and wat lense you used to take those pics?
regs,
Dips

[jms698]

Hare Krishna Jms698,
I love the pic's you posted. Thanks for the nice tips. bty which camera and wat lense you used to take those pics?
regs,
Dips

Hare Krishna!

I used a 5-year old Minolta A1, which has a fixed 28-200mm zoom lens.

Minolta DiMAGE A1 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

It was pretty good camera at the time. However, noise at ISO 200 on that camera was worse than ISO 3200 on the Pentax K20d. I guess it shows that equipment is only a small factor in taking good pictures.

Nevertheless, I've recently upgraded to using a K20d with a 16-50mm f/2.8 zoom (so, 24-75 after the crop-factor conversion). Much better pictures