noah_maier

<p>Beautiful work! Really stunning emotions.</p>

<p>I'm not a Canon shooter, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.<br>

However, more important than any lens is backup gear, especially at a wedding. The 28-75 2.8 (or similar) is by far the most common lens I've seen among wedding photographers. However, that's the reason I haven't bought it. I tend to prefer teles and wides, and don't really deal with the middle range too often. My suggestions?<br>

Buy the 5D<br>

Rent the lenses until you know for sure what you want.</p>

<p>It sounds like you want a top quality prime, but I was confused by your statement "and maybe a couple of other situations (landscape?)". For now I'll recommend the versitile DA* 50-135mm, the best zoom lens you can buy for a Pentax.</p>

<p>One important thing to note is that some websites leave off the "*" for cataloging purposes.<br>

The DA 50-135mm 2.8 and the DA* 50-135mm 2.8 are the same thing and should be around the same price.</p>

<p>I'm by no means an expert, but my 400mm f/5.6 is a stellar quality lens with near perfect optics</p>

<p>Thanks Michaels, both one and two. <br>

Very helpful information, I'm sorry i missed that on my pre-post search.</p>

<p>I've been watching ebay recently, and old lenses can be had for a song. <br /> I know they aren't comprable to a zeiss or leica, or even FA* and Limited glass,<br>

but I am trying to find some toys to play with that won't break the bank. <br>

Specifically, I would like to find a wide angle prime, at least f2.8, somewhere in the 17-35mm range<br>

and a real macro lens (I would prefer 1:1 reproduction). <br>

Does anyone have a good recommendation of lenses? I have had good luck with my "ebay optics" so far, and I'd like to continue that trend. </p>

<p>On a side note, I almost pulled the trigger on the 10-17mm fisheye, but then I saw the Zenitar 17mm. Any disadvantages to that?</p>

<p>It might be good as a feature, but I would leave it off. The whole purpose of having an slr for me is having control.</p>

<p>aye</p>

<p>Well done! I love the details...</p>

<p>I'll probably end up buying three lenses to satisfy my wide angle hunger. First comes the fisheye, simply because I'm picking up more concert photography jobs, and the fisheye would be good to have. Next will probably be a low light sigma prime, and then finally a wide sigma zoom. <br>

Is the Pentax 31mm 1.8 really worth the price? I've heard some people say its the best ever made, but I've heard other people say that you can't tell a difference between it and similar primes. I've never owned a limited lens, so I am curious about the difference.</p>

<p>LBA can never be satistied Bill :)</p>

<p>Assist a pro for free, that's the best way to learn. Buy lenses, not bodies. Check out off camera flash and flash diffusers, and always charge something when you are doing a wedding. Never do it for free. Of that advice, I only followed the last step when I was starting out. You will save a lot of time and energy if you do end up following it. </p>

<p>The eyes and lips are too unrealistic for my taste. Especially the eyes, they seem very bright. However, if that was the look you are going for I like the rest of the picture. </p>

<p>Short answer, no. I like the idea, but It is too slow for me. However, there is definitly a market for it.</p>

<p>I second Bob. Trust your gut, look at unique angles and backgrounds. These are way more important for senior photos then the tech side. The lens I would use is probably the 85mm 1.8, with some 24-70 thrown in. The Iso of 200 should be fine, but adjust that in the field. There's no way of us knowing what the light will be like. I would consider off camera light, or no artificial light at all, but that's just me. Try going to Target or Walmart and purchasing a car reflector (for the windshield). It should help you get some fill if you are in a pinch, and its portable. </p>

<p>If you are purchasing a camera for one wedding, just for a friend, and for free, I see no problems with your choice of camera body. I would spend less on the flash, and more on a decent low light lens. Canon makes an awesome 50 for less than 100 bucks. <br>

However, If you are going pro you need to reconsider your budget. Wedding is one of the most strenuous forms of photography, both equipment wise and mentally. Perhaps start with events and portraits?</p>

<p>Is there a notable difference quality wise between the tamron and sigma 18-55?<br>

And how do they compare with the 16-50? And my kit lens?</p>

<p>I love the idea of a 24mm at 1.8. Paired with a Tamron/Sigma 18-55mm 2.8 and a fisheye I think my wide angles would be well developed. LBA is a deadly disease. Be careful</p>

<p>I didn't even consider Voightlander, good tip.<br>

And thanks for the fisheye info, I'll keep in in mind!</p>

<p>I need some pretty fast lenses most of the time, at least until the ISO performance of Pentax gets extreme :D<br>

So what I am understanding is that I cannot be cheap and buy one lens that does everything. Oh well, so much for that theory. So let's talk two lenses now, and throw some primes in there. I want one superwide for fisheye, and something to cover the wide to medium range. I will buy the fisheye (cause I love it!), but as for the wide to medium range I need something fast. 12-24 is out of the picture, it's too expensive and not fast enough. I seem to have everything past 50mm covered 3x over, but everything below it is a crapshoot.<br>

Thanks again!</p>

<p>I also forgot to say thanks for the great advice! That's why I love this forum</p>

<p>The only reason I would consider the fisheye is because I tend to use my 18-55mm at it's widest setting, and it's a very inexpensive lens :)<br>

The new sigma 10-20mm sounded very interesting. <br>

Here are some price differences, just for reference.<br>

Pentax 12-24mm $579<br>

Sigma 18-50mm $367<br>

Pentax 16-50mm $609<br>

Sigma 30mm 1.4 $417<br>

I personally would like to get something a little bit more wide than a 16, but I do love my 50-135. Perhaps the 16-50 is a good option. Is the 12-24mm really worth $579? At face value I don't see too much that's unique.</p>

<p>I heartily recommend the Pentax K20D, which can now be had under $1000. However, that cuts very close to your budget cutoff. With that in mind, I agree with those who say buy gently used, either nikon or canon. The Xsi's performance in low light is not very special. I also agree, rent a good lens! The lens is much more important than the camera.<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>I'm not sure whether a universal mount would give you the handstrap flexibility you require. Is the handstrap a must? </p>