They've got their Used one on hold for me. Ridiculous prices Here in Germany - Used ones on Amazon and eBay.de nearly 50% more than the SRS New prices - i think ive a bargain!

If i don't like it ill sell it to some Germans! Not sure why brits complain about rip off Britain, should try feeding a Photo and tech habit here!

On Flikr some Great and terrible Pictures - it seems to be a lens that Highlights quite distinctly the skill of the photographer!

To Fund this will Be sellling my 50mm 1.4. I just prefer the feeling of using my 1.7 Manual. If your Interested check the bay in a couple of days!

Not sure if you read my original post all the way through - it was a bit long - but we have got a pro photog. But he'll be with us having the official wedding shots done elsewhere when we want all the family candid shots to happen. Hiring 2 pros in Sweden really is out of out budget. Basically you get about 15 standard wedding album sized shots and zero high res files for about €500 including their time. Thats pretty standard when we were looking. Not sure how it is in the UK. We have about 100 guests - even if they are covered in about 60 shots it's a pretty penny.


So the shots aren't meant to be studio quality or style - getting models to pose in the right way is a dark art in itself!

There is a distant cousin coming who gets paid for his work - airplanes. As mentoned above somewhere his bigma isn't what I had in mind... Plus I won't be able to speak to him before the big day. He may well turn up with something but I can't expect him to or ask him on the day.

I know all about what can happen in the wrong hands - the amount of shockingly composed holiday shots by oin strangers toting dslr's is shocking. But my brother seems to have an eye for composition.

He found the 18-135 combo too heavy, but my manual prime fine - also part of the reason for focussing on that. So that's why I don't think the 17-50 Tamron will be suitable, good though it may be. I found one going for about £200 though.

I'll get him set up with both my 18-135 an manual 50 I think and see which he prefers / can best handle. He is technically minded so he may manage Av mode fine - although manual is out for practicality reasons! I can then buy according to his preferences and

Certainly the corner / border sharpness is less of an issue for narrow DOF shots. The reason for not focussing too much on DOF and including e.g. The 40mm is that at 1.4 or 1.7 that does open up the possibility of problems of having one part of a couple out of focus if he's standing a couple if inches back from his partner or candid group shots seemingly focusing too predominantly on one individual. I doubt there will be many solo 'portraits', candid or otherwise.

The other issue as raised by earlier posts is the focal length. Perhaps for these circumstances 35/40mm is the right trade off between practicality and dof. The 30mm sigma certainly looks like an interesting best of both worlds - just quite a bit heavier and expensive than I was looking for - unless the second hand Market is throwing up some bargains, but not as far as I I've seen. Although I acknowledge it's not so far from the 40mm in price, there seem to be more used copies of these around.

Frogfish-

You are asolutely right, if course. But a fast zoom such as you suggest doesn't really meet the needs mentioned of being lightweight and small profile. I have a cousin coming you is a bigma toting paid-up airplane photog. If he comes with that thing...although I'm sure it can great DoF from 40 feet!

But joking aside, since most of the 'work' will be with friends and family relaxing outside, a quick informal portrait and off to next guest. I just think a prime would feel a bit more inconspicuous and having seen the difference from my 18-135 and 50mm 1.7, I am a prime convert. And yes I know the zoom didn't get the best site reviews but users like it (me included) and it certainly has it's strong points, it's just bested by the €20 prime in terms of IQ. I trust your opinions on the comparability of the 17-50 to a prime, bit as mentioned above it's not really a consideration at the moment

Agreed. Without a split focussing screen and using live view when possible focussing errors are not uncommon with my 50 1.7 when opened up and in a hurry (or not!) Plus the length of time and concentration this lens needs to hit perfect focus is not exactly perfect for the needs. I don't want him to stop down considerably just to achieve focus for a shot that would otherwise be lost - I do also place a value on DoF.

Absolutely agree about DoF - one of my reasons for entering the world of dslr, but I know what my 50mm 1.7 produces at f1.7, and personally I don't value that 70s soft porn layer of mist over the subjects - even if I do get that added DoF. 2.0 is my preferred aperture for that lens, and stopped down when I value sharpness.

That's why I asked about the 50mm 1.4 sub f2.8, since I don't have it. If it's really soft at f1.4 but quality improves by 1.7 then that's a strong consideration.

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.

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!

Will try it later when it gets dark. Agree tripod would be easier for nightime images, and have placed it on a wall, with the same results.

I'm putting it to my eye to compose the image - after having measured the light.

I'll see if covering the eye-piece helps.

Well it's covered by my eye when taking the picture, but typically I am holding it almost at half-arms length to make the reading and pointing in the general direction of the picture (so I can see the settings it decides on and adjust as need be).

If it's dark though, I don't think there could be much light entering the eyepiece at this time - although please correct me if I'm wrong!

Thanks John,

Maybe I wasn't so clear.

This isn't happening in between shots, but for example the first shot I take after turning the camera on.

I was trying to push the limits of night-time pictures by using f1.7-2.8 in the main. Exposure was set to no more that 2 seconds. Typically I would wait about 30 seconds wondering what was going on but trying to give it a chance. WOuld 30 seconds not be sufficient for a 2 second exposure. I'm aware of course that long exposures and burst shots take longer to write - although I must admit I've never heard of "dark frome subtraction" before

I wish I could give you some examples - but I'm not getting a picture when I have to take the battery out. In the examples I gave when I point it at a bright light source, the mirror instantly drops - which strikes me as strange. The resulting picture looks like a 2 second picture held by pretty shaky hands, not like the mirror's been up for 30 seconds while I've been moving it around.

I'll try to induce it again later, and get a picture that I can post with the data.

Regards
Ian