Originally Posted by
Arg
Read my PS re the body issue. It's a risk management issue. If the happy couple want zero risk they should engage a professional wedding photographer, don't you think that's pretty obvious? The risk of a known reliable camera suddenly breaking down on one specific afternoon is actually very small. There is genuinely a much higher risk of ice tripping over a root or step in the first half of the event and spraining an ankle, or worse, and not being able to continue. Are we advising her to wear knee and ankle braces and headgear to protect herself from this risk? Certainly not. I also think it's pretty cheeky for the happy couple to not only not pay the 'official' photographer, but to expect her, a known amateur, to spend whatever it takes so as to perfectly cover their wedding even in the event of a rare equipment failure. They have placed a value of $0 on their wedding photographs, so anything more than 0 photographs is a bonus. We are talking about a small risk, anyway.
I think a bigger risk is covering a wedding with effectively no coverage between 35-80mm (equivalent), especially for group shots.
- - - Updated - - -
I have both these lenses and I have not done any comparative testing, but my subjective impression is the opposite.
Also, using a 10-22 for all group shots, it will be too easy to accidentally zoom out into the distorted area (lets say 10-15mm), in the heat of the many moments.