Photoclubalpha

I am shooting a wedding in November to the tune of $500 and am looking for an appropriate lens to deliver the kind of results that will earn me more business. My kit is small, and 40% ebay. Here goes:

Sony A700
Sony 18-70 (I know)
Sony F56am
Minolta 50/1.7
Minolta 70-210/4

Until I got this wedding contract my plan was to replace my 18-70 with either a 16-80Z, 16-105, or Tamron 17-50/2.8. Now I am thinking of wide primes. I had thought that my 50/1.7 would be excellent for good sharp wedding pictures but it is simply too long for group shots at its effective 75mm length. The 18-70 is not an option, and I cannot find a Minolta 28/2 for sale anywhere.

Lately, though, I am considering purchasing a Sigma 24/1.8, effectively a 36mm lens. From reviews on dyxum.com (http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=152) it seems to be a very good lens but with isolated build quality issues. Does anybody have any experience with this lens or any suggestions I might not have considered? The wedding will be outdoors at 3pm in early November. My budget is $500 but I can go up to $700 for a zoom.

First of all, $500 in whatever dollars (US, Can or Aus!) is far too little for a wedding even for a starting-out assignment. I'd suggest subscribing to a pro wedding/portrait magazine, like The Rangefinder (Wedding and Portrait Photographers International) or our own Master Photo Digital (Master Photographers Association) to get a handle on what real wedding fees run to. In Britain, the average for a non-superstar routine provincial pro would be a take of around £1250 ($2500 US); minimum coverage (box of print or files on CD) around £500 ($1000); many weddings run to £2500-3500.

What you need for weddings, apart from some decent low light capability, is a lens which will cover single, double and full length portraits without putting too many yards of space between photographer and subject - and will also enable large groups in fairly tight spaces, without distorting the faces or figures towards the edges of the frame, or losing sharpness ditto. The shortest focal length which gives undistorted group shots on the A700 is probably 20mm, though 24mm will do OK. I have the Sigma 24mm ƒ1.8 here for testing now (having used it on full frame in the past), and if you can afford one, it seems a very sharp lens but your camera must be precisely calibrated to focus. I have had more, and greater, focusing errors with this lens than any other.

One problem with these fast Sigmas is vignetting. I have tested them all. One of the more appealing lenses - the 20-40mm ƒ2.8 - shows this result, on full frame film, top ƒ2.8, bottom ƒ8:
It's up to you to position an APS-C frame on that and judge whether the fall off is a serious issue at wide aperture. The 24mm ƒ1.8 behaves much the same but it is far better at ƒ2.8. However, this is a lens I would normally want to use around ƒ5.6 for optimum sharpness.

There is one outstanding lens for wedding work, and that's the 24-70mm Carl Zeiss. However, there is a respectable Sigma alternative, the 24-60mm ƒ2.8 DG. This lens sells very cheaply - under $300 - because although it's small and neat, is lacks the macro capability of the much larger 24-70mm ƒ2.8. It has very good image quality and covers a nearly perfect range for wedding work at 35-90mm equivalent. The Tamron 17-50mm is more versatile for groups but lacks the long end. Another choice is the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4. This really has all bases covered, when combined with your 70-210mm. It's a fast lens at the wide end, ideal for church interiors, and not bad at all for sharpness. The 70mm end is perfect for bridal and couple portraits at 105mm equivalent. It also has extremely close focusing, down to 1cm or so from the front element, allowing some stunning shots of rings, flowers, placenames on tables, champagne bubbles.

The 16-105mm would be OK since its weak point is the extreme corners, and these are just not used. But it's an ƒ5.6 lens from 50mm to 105mm and only ƒ5 at 35mm. It is not a low light lens. The 16-80mm would be great but you are forced to use RAW to correct CA, which could disrupt group shots badly at the extremes. Since DRO+ is so useful at weddings (shoot JPEGs with it set to manual +2 value) you may want to try for a lens which will produce CA-free JPEGs. Yes, the 28mm ƒ2 is ideal and that's what I use, but you can't find them. Any of the others - Sigma, Tamron, Sony, whatever - may produce either fuzzy CA or very sharp CA (like the Zeiss, easily corrected with full resolution recovered, but very visible if not corrected).

Is there a solution? Yes - get the Zeiss and buy DxO Optics Pro software to convert the raw files. First, it automatically corrects distortion and CA in the lens. Secondly, DxO Lighting works like DRO+ from the raw file, and makes a big difference. Thirdly, you can set a profile to imitate Fujicolor NPS160 film or Vericolor Type III S - the traditional colour negative films used for weddings. This makes a subtle difference to skin tones and will give your results a look unlike normal 'anyone can tell that's digital' output. DxO only supports specific lenses, but the 16-105mm and 16-80mm are both supported on the Alpha 700.

David

Wow, thank you for your input...somewhat more like a thesis, but it is all appreciated. First off, I do concede that $500 is far too little for a wedding, but I have my reasons. Mainly I want to "under promise and over deliver," and hopefully get some more business sent my way. I will certainly not offer to do another wedding at this price again.

I have seen plenty of sample images from the Sigma 24/1.8 and find little or no vignetting, but I thank you for the warning. For my purposes and for my kit I would rather have a great prime than a good but short-ranged zoom. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is still very attractive, and the Sigma 17-70 would be more attractive still if I hadn't read about quite a few build quality issues.

And speaking of build quality issues, there has been some concern about the CZ16-80. Honestly it has the most attractive optics of all the zooms I have considered and would have the most utility for my kit, but I've been cautioned about this lens in every review I've ever read about it. You didn't mention anything about it in your response besides some CA issues.

The 16-80mm build issues are mainly connected with the first batches made - when reviewers got their lenses. We are not hearing of any problems with current production, and if there are problems, they are really obvious - you don't miss hearing a rattle from something loose inside a lens, and seeing the image jump around when you focus or zoom. You can check for the known fault within minutes of buying a lens. My 'good' example of the 16-80mm - one of the first made - has now done 15 months of use and remains solid with no apparent wear. It's the best lens I have and I use it all the time. But - you said $500, and it's more than that (in the UK it is more like $1000).

David

It's slightly off topic, I know, but I felt I must chime in. On the subject of what to charge, while I get where you are coming from, personal experience tells me you might just be setting yourself up for trouble. Granted I have never shot weddings for pay, but my whole life has been contract based when it comes to my income. I have had to price my time, skill and effort in many other areas. Everytime I kept my fee well below "normal", it came back to bite me unless I took some very clear steps.

First, I hope this is someone you know on a personal level. If not, they are not likely to understand, nor care that you are giving them a killer deal. Second, you need them to understand it is a killer deal that will never be repeated, or else they will go off suggesting you to future business because "he's so much cheaper than anyone else". The moment anyone says that about you, you have a problem. If future business walks in the door expecting a bargain, there is no amount of quality, service, or professionalism that will sell them to sign the deal because they already feel misslead, even though you weren't the one who promised them the deal. If you know these people well enough that they will happily ignore what you charged them in talking to others in the future, then your plan might work. Even the best intentioned might slip up though from time to time, so expect some potential future clients to also expect you to do their gigs for $500 too. And more important than that, don't take it personally if someone who does come to you expecting to get your services for $500 gets angry if you tell them no. Whatever you choose though, the best of luck to you, and happy shooting!

Alright, for now I'm ruling out the Sigma 24/1.8, though it is definitely a lens I would like to have in my bag (assuming I cannot find a KM 28/2). The Tamron 17-50 is still very attractive at just $450 US, but the only reason I hesitate, honestly, is that I may later go ahead and get a CZ16-80. I would get the CZ16-80 now but at $700 US, it just isn't in the budget. I just found a camera shop that has both the CZ16-80, 16-105, and Tamron 17-50 and compared them all and found the 16-105 inferior to the 16-80 due to pronounced pincushion and barrel distortion, so at $580 US, it is a little too compromised to be a compromise between the other too lenses. That leaves me with a fast $450 zoom equivalent to 26-75/2.8 (something like the 28-70/2.8 my own wedding was shot with) or for $250 more I'd have a wider, longer, slower zoom that won't leave any holes in my range.

I'd like to hear more about the Tamron 17-50/2.8 if anybody has any experience with it. All I seem to hear is "great, but I wish it was longer."