Lens for documenting / portraits at a wedding

I am looking for help from people who have had use of any of the following - preferably more than one:

50mm 1.4
35mm 2.4
35mm 2.0
40mm 2.8

This is a dilema as to which light-weight, beginner friendly one lens solution would work for documenting a wedding (mine!), with some candid portrature.

I have a K5 and currently just the 18-135, and SMC M 50 1.7, and plan on giving it to my brother or a friend to document some of my wedding (he's keen so I'm not being mean!), and to do some unoffical family / guest portaits while waiting for us to arrive from the portrait session after the wedding itself. No inside venue shots anticipated.

Neither my brother or friends attending have experience with a DSLR - so I am not expecting professional grade photos, but I do want the best image quality possible. I really enjoy my 50mm, and definitely want a prime set up.

Why not just get a professional to do it all? Well firstly the plan is that this is done while we are having our shoot with the wedding photog elsewhere. Secondly the wedding is in Sweden - where the cost of a pro is painful for what you get. Money is also tight.

My plan is to set up a couple of suitable custom settings and name them "before wedding" and "after wedding portraits" or something similar. I'll then give it to a friend to get some candid shots before the ceremony (at this point custom mode will probably be in AV mode and left in, say f4-5.6. I'll have turned off the dials in the set-up to prevent tinkering). Then I'll get him or another friend to change it to custom setting 2 - which will have Av mode, with F2.0-2.8. He'll do the after-wedding drinks reception portraits in this mode.

So my criteria in order of priority
1) Lightweight and low-profile - or they'll be reluctant (I consider my 50mm f1.7 to be reasonably lightweight, but not my 18-135mm!)
2) easy to use (so no manual only)
3) able to do both light portrait work and documentation. This must be a one-lens solution.
4) Very good IQ (good DoF for the portrature).
5) be reasonably inexpensive (max £275)

What the lens won't be used for:
1) Probably not in the church.
2) Probably not inside the reception venue (not badly lit, and it won't get dark til nearly midnight anyway), but WB, ISO, exposure etc would be too much for a beginner.

Any help appreciated with choosing from the lenses mentioned above. Price is an issue, which is why I haven't included others such as the 70mm f2.4 and 43mm 1.9; although I'd love to add both to the list it just isn't realistic, and the 70mm is probably too long for any indoor shots. Any others you could suggest would also be appreciated.

I am also looking at some stage over the next 12-18 months to build a street set-up, with one solid lens for portraits. So anything that goes towards meeting this goal is a bonus!

My take: I can pick up used copies of both the 40mm and 50mm for £250 or less. From what I have read, the 50mm doesn't really start to shine until about f2.8 anyway. Does the f1.4-2.8 have any real value in terms of image quality (or is it low-light emergency only situations?). I normally use my 50mm between f2.8-5.6 when I want to be safe. I have seen these alternatives debated before - but would you chose one of these in my particulat circumstances? Is the 40mm suitable for portraits, I have seen on photozone that the bokeh may not perhaps be the strongpoint of the lens. I do love my 50mm manual only, so do not necessarily want an AF lens at the same focal length as my next lens unless there is a strong reason to do so.

The two 35mms. I have seen the f2.0 going for more than €350 on ebay recently, while the f2.4 is half that new. Is there a reason for this given the good reviews the f2.4 has received? Is the f2.0 that much better? I know I will have to look for a bargain to get this at my price-point!

Thanks for any help you can give!

I have a 50mm f1.7, the DA 40mm f2.8 and the 35mm f2.4; in terms of speed there really isn't much in it and the quality of all of them is superb. They all have their uses but in your position I would go for the 35mm f2.4, the 50 is possibly too long and the 40 too expensive if funds are tight.

You certainly wont be disappointed by the 35 2.4

Dont be too worried about things being too complicated for a novice, just leave it on the green setting

I have the 35mm 2.4 - it's a lightweight lens, with the composite mount and no quick shift or aperture ring, but I've found it takes great pictures, and have some lovely portraits taken with it outside.

For the price I don't think you'll find better - there were a few for sale on here a while back but I think they all went.

The 35mm f2.4. Great focal length for this sort of thing. Stick it in Av mode (at f2.4 - it is perfectly sharp enough wide open and will help blur distracting backgrounds a bit) and just let your brother get on with it. Let him also try the 50mm f1.7 in Av mode and see if he can pull of some 'bokeh' shots (it will be stuck open at f1.7 but that could result in some impressive looking shots if he manages to get any in focus!)

1 more for the 35mm 2.4, cheap light and sharp.

I have the 50mm 1.4 & the 35mm 2.4, I use the 35mm more, just for the FOV. The 50mm is to long on a crop sensor, great for head & shoulder portraits. Also by going 35mm you can zoom in, if they use the 50mm you can't put stuff back into the shot

I'd go 35mm focal length too... It is 'normal' so shouldn't give him many 'too-long' or 'too short' moments...

Ive literally just pulled the trigger on the FA35 f2 as I wanted something just a 'little' wider than the '50' myself... The FA only because I shoot a bit of film too (and Pentax might cave at some point and bring FF...)

The 35mm f2.4 is a so-called FF lens as well but without the aperture ring

I have both a 50 F1.4 and the 35 F2.4 and I would go for the 35. In part because an F1.4 in novice hands is more likely to m1ss the spot and be slightly out on focus, however the 50 is great for indoors shooting.

One piece of advice is to keep the camera on P and set to shoot Raw+, that way colour can be ajusted later.

For candid shooting I always use my 50-135 to give me some distance between my camera and the subject, that way they don't even know you are taking them! So I am thinking that your 18 -135 would be great here, I know you want to use primes but...

Also, the 18-135 is very fast on focus, this is great for the grab shots.

Thanks for the recomendations so far.

Had to laugh at the idea of letting my novice brother loose with a manual only on the big day. That said he pulled a sharp focus the first and only time he tried! That said he had spun the aperture round to about 16... So beaky net, I too would be a bit anxious of him sticking the 1.4 wide open and getting one eye in focus. At least it would have the A option.

But yes my plan is to shoot raw so wb etc won't be a concern. Will have a 3 shot exposure bracket too I think. That's why I do t think the green button will do it - i reserve that to giving it to strangers for shots. I took a p&s to the same venue a few years ago... Bright sunny afternoon, bright White church, White bride... You get the picture!

It seems the 35mm is something of a consensus lens! Certainly food for thought. Does it need to be used with a hood, since it does t come with one?

Noone really mentioned the 40mm which I bought was a surprise. I can pick one up second hand for about £230...not so much more than the 35+hood. Is there a reason for discounting this? Does the extra 5mm make such a big difference or indeed the 2.8 vs 2.4?

I do agree with the versatility of the 18-135... It's just not really the lightweight package I'm looking for...and I think this is a lens that needs a bit of aperture tweaking at the various focal lengths to get the best out of it...and not have someone using the long end too much to keep the edges reasonable. That's why I was concentrating on primes - keep it simple.

Tune the dioter for his eye

Pete

I think we were all thinking about your pockets...

But... The 40 being that much smaller and the possibility of your brother drinking at your wedding and fingering the front element...
If you trust your brother and can afford the extra layout for the 40... It'll be nice to have on your honeymoon...
If you'r brother is a drunkard with grubby fingers... Go with the 35...

I used 28mm and 50mm lenses on film for years without a lens hood and never had a problem, but perhaps digital sensors are, well, more sensitive to extraneous light. It's probably worth picking up one of these. Works well, but it's a shame about the name: link

For apertures wider that about f2.0 then this will only reduce focussing errors

Yet again we one of the most significant aspects of photography Ignored. DOF creativity

It's far too common to only focus on fast lenses for low light purposes. And it's a real shame IMO. What comes reading about numbers or reading posts made by people who read about numbers.

Aperture control is one of the most wonderful aspects of photography. Using wide apertures to get shallow DOF shots with nice areas of Bokeh is particularly nice for wedding photography.

The first two pictures on this page show the effect nicely

http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Wedding101-page2.html

The best Image Quality from the 50/1.4 is at 1.4 IMO. Of course if you want boringly sharp across the frame, wider DOF pics, then yes the 50/1.4 is sharper stopped down somewhat. but as you may or may not know that perhaps isn't the best technique for portraiture or even candids.


You won't produce anything exciting or with charisma if you follow consensus.

Remember the Camel is a Horse designed by consensus.