sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Very nice shots and I thank you for sharing. My primary interest was the f/2.8 feature on the 17-50. I do use a Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 on a 40D, but am thinking I need to get a bit wider?
Would love a one lens does all approach for a wedding. As they are both indoor and outdoor, not sure that is my best option, but I may be persuaded. LOL
"Weddingguy" is one of my most respected mentors on UHH and we now hear he liked his Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 except for the weight. Maybe we have two questions here. Is a one-lens option worth the risk for a wedding, and the second is any preference between the Sigma and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8?
If Weddingguy thinks the OS (sigma) or the VC (Tamron) feature is worth the bucks, it is good enough for me. No pressure though. lol.
Boy, this is one great site to post and to learn - not necessarily in that order!

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

I carry two cameras to all weddings . . . one with a 24-70 F/2.8L and the other with a 70-200 F/2.8 L IS (Canons) Although the 70-200 is my very favourite lens, it is not practical for all conditions. An average wedding is about 1500 images for me of which about 300 are shot with the 70-200 when I use it for my formal shots.

My wedding last Saturday was a little unusual in that I never got to use the 70-200 at all. So speaking to your idea of a "one lens" coverage, for my money the 24-70 is the answer. Even if you choose to shoot with one lens, which is fine, it doesn't mean one camera is enough. A back-up at weddings is absolutely imperative!

Firstly the F/2.8 throughout the entire zoom range is a must. Even if I never had to use the full F/2.8, it allows the camera to better see in subdued light for focussing. The 24mm in my estimation is as wide as I want to go, because beyond that there is unacceptable distortion. A wider lens would be great for some creative funky shots, but not great enough to carry another camera, risk dust problems or lose valuable shots while changing lenses. The 70mm end of 24-70 is a super portrait lens with nice ability to get rid of busy backgrounds and creates a beautiful bokeh.
Compared to the 16-35 or 17-50, I don't think the long end (35 or 50) are suitable for portraits and have too much DOF to get rid of busy backgrounds.

I've heard favourable comments about the 18-200 Tamron, but it isn't fast enough throughout the full zoom range, so for me it is not even a consideration as a "wedding" lens. It would be an awesome "walk-around" lens though!

My wife who is my second shooter only carries one camera, and that has another 24-70 on it . . . all top end Canon lenses.

I know we all have a budget . . . but consider that an investment in the best glass is just that! A top end lens will outlive a number of camera upgrades and if you check them out used, you'll see that they hold their value like nothing else in the photo industry. Your camera equipment is like a chain . . . only as good as it's weakest link. Do consider that even if it's a squeeze . . well worth it!

Just my 3 cents worth :mrgreen: