Lens & Flash for wedding (for K10D)

Hi All, this is a whopper - I'll try and make it concise. Fiance and I are trying to keep our budget under control by getting a friend (keen amateur photographer like myself) to do our wedding. He has a film SLR, I have a k10D so we're going to use my camera. Easier for post processing and getting the photo book printed.

PICTURE REQUIREMENTS:
We're not nuts on getting a million brilliant photos. Candid shots, a couple of portraits and some small groups will do fine to make a nice book for the coffee table, I'll ad some macro. Only big (i.e. large print) shot is a nice portrait of the girl & I for the mum-in-laws wall (its a family tradition). Weather permitting this will be done outside.

MAGIC LENS:
I want 'one lens' for the wedding (don't we all). I realise I want something faster than the kit lens (17-55) and my old Sigma APO 70-300 is not really useful. My thoughts were to get a better replacement for the kit lens. i.e:

Pentax 16-50/2.8 or Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Sigma 18-50/2.8

I've eliminated the Pentax lens. My googling so far reveals issues with QC and it's MUCH more expensive than the others. To complicate things, my research suggests 17-50 ish is not the best range for the wedding. Now I'm looking at:

Sigma 24-70/2.8 or Tamron 28-75/2.8

Reviews mixed. Lot of fans of the Tamron regards image quality, some concerns over low light AF which might be an issue. The Sigma is big, not necessarily an issue for me. Techie stuff aside, many seem to think the extra range at the wide end makes the Sigma the choice. Thoughts?

I still have the kit lens if I'm pinched for width once outside.

OTHER THOUGHTS:
Need a flash. Looking at the Jessops 360AFD. Mixed reviews, but many report it working.

Backup - Old school, Pentax MZ6 35mm + SMC 28-90mm kit lens. ISO 200 film? Compact digitals for candids and, possibly, some group shots.

SUMMARY:
Are these the best two choices for general wedding use (as opposed to 17-50 type range)?

Sigma 24-70/2.8 v. Tamron 28-75/2.8

If so, does anyone have any strong convictions re quality or the exta 4mm wide v 5mm tele?

Also, if that flash is a 'stinker' tell me. Sorry for the rambling, I've been googling for hours and getting more confused....

When I do weddings, usually having been emotionally blackmailed into doing so, I only use two lenses.

SMC Pentax-DA 16-45mm f4
SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f1.4

The first is fine for general use, the second for low light experimental shots at the evening reception.

Flash outdoors, the Pentax 360 is fine, but above all using it properly does need practice. And then more practice until it's all second nature.

I know you say you don't want much photography, but you might feel disappointed afterwards if you don't have it covered properly. It is a unique event.

IMO backup should be a second photographer (my wife assists me) and a second digital SLR. Mixing film and digital isn't a good plan IMO.

Have you considered a Tamron 24-135 (if you can find one)? They seem to get favourable reviews.

I have the Jessops 360AFD flash and can report it works with my K10D in auto and manual modes. It does seem to be PTTL compatible (If you put the camera on 2s delay there is an initial flash when you press the shutter button and then a proper flash after 2s).

It does feel a bit cheap though and you may be dissappointed if it cost more than the £68.48 it is currently on for.

Hi Bramo,
This is what I will be using this year as my wedding kit,
DA,16-45 SDM
DA 50-135 f2.8 SDM,
DA 200 f2.8 SDM,
DA 300 f4 SDM
K20D X 2,
Pentax AF-540,FGZ Flash or the Metz 58AF-1 Digital not made my mind up on this yet..

I'm pretty much with JR on this but do you really want to let your friend use a camera he isn't familiar with?

As a pro I once did a wedding for another photographer and had to use his kit (35mm Olympus when I was used to using a Mamiya 67 and 645 for weddings but he only had a 35mm darkroom) I can tell you that I wasn't happy and spent more time worrying about camera settings and operation than getting great pictures. Will your pal be totally comfortable with your K10? I'd give it to him for a few weeks so that he can familiarise himself with it.

The Sigma and Tamron you mention at the end are not wide enough and 18-55 or 16-50 is spot on, IMO.

Congratulations BBTW!

Ken

if I had to soot a wedding with the minimal kit possible (bear in mind, I consider my 93 chevy astro van to be a camera bag) I'd have two bodies (preferably the same, in my case k10's) the 10-17mm fisheye, 50mm 1.4, 16-45, ftg360 flash, ringflash, tripod. (just cause I have all that stuff).

And plus one for what Gartmore said about letting your friend have the equipment to learn.

Hi All, thanks for the tips so far. I certainly intend to let my friend have plenty of time with the camera. We'll visit the church and the river where we'll do some of the portraits well in advance and practice some of the shots we'd like.

Come to think of it, probably the best thing to do now is to take my kit lens (18-55) to the church/river and see how the range works out.

In terms of price/performance I think I'll go with the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or 28-75/2.8 depending on the outcome of the above trials.

Richard, thanks for the comment on the flash. I just found the following article:

http://knol.google.com/k/matthew-miller/-/3jwk7bitq8i8/1#

Seems Metz and Sigma both have flashes for the K10d that aren't terribly expensive. I have a bit more reading to do on that front.

Acc

Don - a fisheye at a wedding?

Seems an odd choice - can I ask why?

Mike

PS I have the Tamron 17-50 and find it to be a good all round lens and the f2.8 is handy.

sure. if you learn to use the fisheye, you can exagerate or minimise the distortion effect.

try this, line up a groupshot, in a straight line and take a shot....see all the distortion?
now arrange the in a semi circle, so they are all the same distance from the lens...they won't look so distorted...

now imagine a group of people sitting around a round table at a reception....angle it right, and light it right and you get everybody at the table in the frame, looking good. no matter how crouded the venue is.

stand beside the bride/groom when the boquet/garter gets tossed, time the shot to get the item as it passes the apex of it's flight, and you got everybodies expressions as the reach for it, even the bride/groom looking over thier shoulder at the action.

and more,,,

Very clever - thanks Don.

Any examples you can share?

Mike

Not just clever, brilliant!!!

We bought a bagful of lenses to shoot a friends wedding, and I spent most of the day using the DA* 16-50 on my K20, with the DA* 50-135 on the spare K10D for a few portraits. The better half used the 31mm Ltd for when she couldn't nab the DA* 16-50 off me!

As much as you may not like the idea, I would say if you were to only use 1 lens all day, it would be the DA* 16-50. It's weather sealed, fast, quiet, and the quality is very, very good, what more could you want for a wedding!

2nd the advice on getting plenty of practice on using the flash too!

I would also stock up on memory cards and some spare batteries. A previous thread had some good tips for using the best man to help do the group photos.

The DA* 16-50 would be ideal if you can afford it. The QC issues are over-blown and easily solved (buy from SRS!). The 16-45 is very good too and much cheaper. After all, it is only 1 stop slower.

Congrats by the way, and good luck to your friend. The one time I was persuaded to "do" a wedding was one of the most nerve wrecking events of my life not helped by my camera not coming back from the service place in time and having to borrow one from the shop!

Best wishes, Kris

here's an example that hides the fisheye effect fairly well:


here's one from a recent wedding:


then in the video, the above image gets panned and zoomed in closer:

then cutaway to the video clip......

Thanks Don, they are very effective and shows me a side of fisheye that I didn't know existed. The one of the slide is very effective.

Only two ladies keen to get the bouquet then The one in red should play for the Canadian cricket team.

Mike