Does this lens produce better photos than a 18-55mm lens? For wedding group portraits / candids?
1582810
I wouldn't say your bound to get way better quality vs this lens kompared to a 18-55mm. That all depends of kourse on the quality of the lens your using. But i will say this lens is amazing and has great picture quality. In a wedding setting i would definitely recommend simply because wedding pictures usually deal with shots that envolved groups of people. And they really weren't lying when they said "wide angle" regarding the description of this lens. It remarkable how much massive space this lens is able to kapture and fit into a single shot. Hope this waz informative for u.
1582811
I can't answer that because I haven't shot with a 18-55 lens. The 17-50 works fine for wedding and candids however I did notice a slight soft focus on the left side of some shots when using it.
784394
I used it to take pictures at my fiance's son's wedding and they came out fantastic. Some of the longer shots were blurry but I think it was more a matter of my getting to know the camera (which I had bought only a month previous). It was an outdoor wedding and I was in the second row and got amazing shots of the bride and groom during the ceremony with no tripod and by simply stabilizing the lens with my left hand.
351601
This lens performs better in low light. It also has a lower aperture which gives you a lower depth of field. I use this lens all the time for weddings/corporate events. Its the best MFT telephoto I know of.
1794982
With my 6D, I was shooting other people's weddings at "wedding central", or one of them, in Sydney. I was quite a distance away, maybe 50m, and the lens worked very well, but even in the day, I try to keep the shutter speed up to >1/500. I bought a monopod for this lens but I don't yet know how useful it is; haven't shot enough comparisons. But for weddings in the open, at a fast shutter speed, a very fine lens indeed.
1703580
I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache distortion as well as barrel or pin cushion... and that can be very distratcing. I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache... » Read More I'd vote neither. They have comparable image quality to the 18-55 IS... and they offer a greater focal range, but their image quality isn't stunning. I'd personally lean you towards a 24-105L used or a 15-85L used. They have comparable image quality to each other with the former having the benefit of a constant aperture through the focal range. Both are very very good lenses and will suffice for most of you needs. It should also be noted that most super zooms often have some form of distortion (which is common will all lenses), but the 18-xxx are often noted for mustache distortion as well as barrel or pin cushion... and that can be very distratcing. « Show Less
1833848
I don't do weddings but I don't think that a wide angle lens would be a good lens for people shots at a wedding. Wide angle distorts faces and wouldn't be a lens of choice except perhaps group shots or landscape motives. For people portraits one would usually use a prime or zoom lens somewhere between 85 and 135 mm focal length.
2085593
I use Canon and I didn't find marvelous this lens, just convenient because of the range. Even if it works on that Pentax, I guess your criterion could be sharpness instead of range, and I think the 18-135 WR is a bit sharper than this one, in case you are chasing for a zoom lens.
1734205
Yes this lens is slightly more noisy then the 18mm and 35mm but I would not call it very. Remember this lens does not feature the linear motor as found on some lenses to make them quieter when focusing.
1139201
Here is the thing about that lens. It makes people look GOOFY. It distorts faces. Maybe it makes kids and babies look weird for a purpose. I used it on a documentary, and I love it handheld, but it is whack. It makes cars, buildings, look great if you put it SUPER close to a foreground object. I would not buy it for weddings. It is also cool in Oregon dark nights for time-lapse... I would get a 100MM zeiss for weddings or 100mm canon macro.
1813090
I may be the wrong person to answer since I don't do weddings nor much in the way of people images, but it would seem to me that this lens might be a bit slow for use with people unless you are using flash. Otherwise, it is a fine lens and has the expect Nikon quality.
494444
Yes by all means. The 18-135 is much better lens with better optics, and the additional focal lenth will come in handy. This lens is also heavier but much better built than the 18-55. Also the lens hood for the 18-135 is a nice petal shaped hood, but the hood for the 18-55 is a complete joke.
1345652
The 24-70 f2.8 is a better lens for sure, and much more expensive. But this lens is VERY good, and will do a fine job for weddings.
2118677
this is a very versatile lens however if you are shooting weddings I would recommend a constant aperture through the zoom range. This lens loses light through your zoom range. I would not recommend this lens as a primary for wedding photography. That being said, it is a great lens to have in your arsenal when you learn it's best applications...my advice rent a lens before you buy to make sure...it will cost a but more but in the long run it's better to know a lens will fit your needs than to buy one and be disappointed
2069812
This lens would NOT be good for a group picture - unless you were standing 50 yards away. It is designed as a portrait lens on a full frame sensor which means its really an 120mm lens on your cropped sensor. Group photos of t he kind you mention are more effectively shot with a lens in the 20-24mm range. That said, this is a GREAT lens, amazingly sharp. But no groups.
1139204
This is not a people lens. It stays in my bag until I get the occasional architecture or real estate job. It's just too wide for people (distortion). It's also not that sharp edge-to-edge until the higher f-stops, not like a fisheye lens. So, for weddings, it's impractical for low light work. The 16-35/2.8 and fisheye perform better at weddings than the 14/2.8.
1247238
Yes, I would definitely recommend this lens. I have all the high end lens and shoot wedding photography. But this is still one of my favorite lens. So sharp and clean and great boca.
2193893
I don't possess a 35mm nor have I received this lens as yet, the recipient hasn't given me lens. I have an 18-55mm. From the comments I've read prior to purchasing it, it seems of great performance but I guess lighting (whether frm natural lighting or a speedlight) will also determine ur photo outcome. Speedlite helps alot! I tuk evn a few shots yesterday with mine n they're of great quality. Go browse some reviews from evn Youtube, like I did. Am planning to buy a 35mm prime lens later also.