Lens Recommendations for Weddings

[atr1981]

Currently got an Canon EOS 30D with the 28 - 105mm f/4 USM L lens attached.

I'm starting up a budget wedding photography company and was wondering what other lenses I should go for ?

I'm thinking maybe the 70 - 200mm f/4 L lens for some telephoto images and maybe a 50mm f/2.8 prime for good bokeh.

Any suggestions ?

[iGiDK]

I'd seriously think about adding a flash to that list if you've not got one as you'll end up doing shoots in poor light and also indoors. A second body as a backup in case anything goes wrong would also be essential, on a budget you could pick up a refurb 10D for cheapness, or have a 300D/bargain 350D

For portraits:
Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM or Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM, don't think you can go wrong with either of them

The 70-200mm f4L is superb although I've never thought about how it would perform on a wedding day, would be good for candids - if you can afford it I would maybe consider the f4L IS or the f2.8 non IS as these would perform better in low light.

Hope it goes well for you

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by roset3

Currently got an Canon EOS 30D with the 28 - 105mm f/4 USM L lens attached.

I'm starting up a budget wedding photography company and was wondering what other lenses I should go for ?

I'm thinking maybe the 70 - 200mm f/4 L lens for some telephoto images and maybe a 50mm f/2.8 prime for good bokeh.

Any suggestions ?

What do you mean by budget?

You'll need one more body, plus 2 speedlights. As for lenses. I'd lose the 24-105 - it's too long for the 30D and means too much lens swapping on the way and arguably too slow for what will be your main workhorse for the day. Swap it for a constant f2.8 like the 17-55 IS or Tamron 17-50/Sigma 8-50. f4's are a little slow for a wedding, so maybe look at the Tokina 50-135/2.8 or Sigma 50-150/2.8. Add at least one fast prime like the Sigma 30/1.4, EF 28/1.8. I'm not a huge fan of 50mm on a 1.6x body so would miss that and go for an 85/1.8 for candids. Three words for wedding shooting - redundancy, redundancy, redundancy.

I'm assuming you have shot weddings before so may be teaching you to suck eggs here. Also budget for a a good amount of CF cards (at least 4 4GB cards), decent website, company registration, accountant, PI insurance, kit insurance and the like.

[atr1981]

When I mean budget I'm talking about the cost to the customer. I was fed up when I got married of the prices charged. I am pretty sure there are people out there who just want a basic photograpy package that will provide them with a few images from the day.

I see what you mean about the 24 - 105mm being too long, what about if I upgrade to a full frame body in the future though ?

Currently got one Speedlite 430EX and will be looking at getting the 580EX too in the future.

I have tried the Sigma's and find them too noisy when focusing.

Thanks for your ideas, if anyone else has any input please feel free to comment.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by roset3

When I mean budget I'm talking about the cost to the customer. I was fed up when I got married of the prices charged. I am pretty sure there are people out there who just want a basic photograpy package that will provide them with a few images from the day.

No doubt - but watch for that treadmill with pricing too low. In my experience the low-ballers aften expect the most. You still need to ensure ROI for yourself.

Originally Posted by roset3

I see what you mean about the 24 - 105mm being too long, what about if I upgrade to a full frame body in the future though ?

Fair point but I'd buy for what you have today. Buy well and you won't lose much on glass.

Originally Posted by roset3

Currently got one Speedlite 430EX and will be looking at getting the 580EX too in the future.

Good stuff

Originally Posted by roset3

I have tried the Sigma's and find them too noisy when focusing.

Fair enough. In that case I'd be looking at the 17-55/2.8IS but it's not cheap. The second body is a must.

[h4rri]

Before you go splashing the cash I would seriously suggest you sit down, price it all up and work out your base price per hour. You might find with insurance, gear wear & tear and the like you aren't that far from the pro's.

I admire your reasons for getting into the trade but it is a professional market. The few out there charging too much or providing a poor service are corrupting it for the rest of them.

I would set the price to a realistic level factoring in alot of points including gear, time, travel, insurance and finally time to process the shots and the media on which they will be presented. I'm sure if you focus on offering a solid service at a low price you'll get the business As RH says I always found in business that friends paying no money or cheapie jobs expected the most

On the gear front I would suggest a pair of 30D's [minimum], a pair of BG-E3's [with additional batteries] and a pair of 580's and numerous batteries. For lenses the 85 f/1.8, 24-70 f/2.8 and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

[tomson]

I thoroughly recommend a 17-55mm & 70-200 (both 2.8 IS) combo - coupled with 2 flashes and 2 bodies you can pretty much cover the majority of situations. Once you've mastered your equipment and nailed your style then you might want to add a few more specialist lenses (ultra wide, macro etc). But keep it simple at first.

And buy good lenses from the beginning - don't try to do it on the cheap as you'll just end up forking out more cash for the lenses you should have bought in the first place.

[onefivenine]

I agree with what everyone has said about quality expectations remaining high despite what you think of as 'budget'.

This leads me to a greater concern about undercutting real photographers who need to make a living.

You will be taking food from their tables if you undercut them. People doing this also forces down the market rates.

My advice would be to learn your craft, and charge market rates. If you are any good you will get the business, and you also won't be selling yourself short.

More importantly you won't impact what is a relatively small, specialised industry, for everyone else who's trying to earn a crust seriously, and not just on what sounds awfully like the familiar 'got a new dSLR bright idea money making idea'... no offence!

[atr1981]

I'm not sure I aggree on the comment about real photographers. What makes you think i'm not ? I class myself as a real photographer, just not in the Wedding scene. Indeed I would not want to undercut people and put them out of business but we all have to make a living and surely it makes good business sense to charge a smaller amount and get the business than charge an excessive amount and not.

When I mean budget I certainly don't mean low quality images. I just know that there are a lot of people out there who simply can't afford the high costs of having a photographer.

I will simply be giving them an option to have someone record their special day for a price more affordable without them loosing image quality.

Our photographer charged £12.50 for a 12" x 8" print that I know damn well cost him £2.60. I'd simply charge less for each image.

[denno75uk]

Originally Posted by onefivenine

I agree with what everyone has said about quality expectations remaining high despite what you think of as 'budget'.

This leads me to a greater concern about undercutting real photographers who need to make a living.

You will be taking food from their tables if you undercut them. People doing this also forces down the market rates.

My advice would be to learn your craft, and charge market rates. If you are any good you will get the business, and you also won't be selling yourself short.

More importantly you won't impact what is a relatively small, specialised industry, for everyone else who's trying to earn a crust seriously, and not just on what sounds awfully like the familiar 'got a new dSLR bright idea money making idea'... no offence!

I think this is overdramatising things a bit and ignores the fact that IMHO the wedding market is wide open for someone who, with real integrity, will take good pictures of your day without charging the earth.

The fact is, with the advent of DSLRs, the process of taking good quality shots and getting them to a customer is potentially a hell of a lot cheaper. It all depends on the photographer. I can see a massive market in this day and age for someone to take a good amount of decent shots (again, all dependent on the photographer) but who could then arrange viewing at home on a laptop and then present the customer with whatever shots they want on disc to print out how they see fit. Copies could even be emailed to friends and family for a cost way lower than ordering a 12X8 or whatever.

If someone is prepared to do this, has the ability/talent/integrity to produce quality work and can arrange a tariff that allows a decent wage whilst still being 'cheap' then why the hell not.

The costs of a good photographer a few years ago (eg ours) I assumed was not just down to skill/labour but the processing of medium format film by the photographer after the event. Surely there has to be an adjustment these days for the fact that digital is the format of choice.

[atr1981]

Thank you.

To be honest that is all I want to do.

Provide a service to the people who can't afford the inflated prices some photogrpahers charge nowadays.

[senu]

This thread is veering away from the "best lens for wedding photograph theme" to the ethics of charging.

I think the market is wide enough for all and anyone who out prices himself will get limited buisness but a great many people seem to be happy even if they feel the money pinch.. Good Quality sells.. period

It seems to me the bulk of suggestions on kit has been made.. and if we keep off topic
That might be a good time to close it as tempers seem to be rising unduly

[atr1981]

No problems.

I have got the answers I needed.

Thank you.

[Radiohead]

I think it's a useful thread senu - I'm still not sure whether the OP has shot a wedding.

The kit issue still needs ironing out and we have no budget to work from. As for charging - it's an important issue. That print might have cost him £2.6 to print, but it ignores all of the costs of getting the shot in the first place. These are crucial points. The costs in terms of taking a shot are cheaper now, but I don't actually believe that digital is cheaper in the final analysis. The kit is more expensive, the computer needed is expensive, as is the software, and now all of the "development" time is down to the photographer - this can be 2-3 days after the event itself. These costs can't be ignored and looking at the cost of a print only gives an utterly false impression. Weddings are pressure and some of that is reflected in the cost. It's more than what a print costs.

I also would like to know what the OP considers inflated. I'm not trying to start an argument here, far from it.

[atr1981]

I know this is just a conversation so I have no problems with answering the questions.

I have not shot a wedding as the main photographer but have shot my own images at three family weddings, taking the bride and groom to the side and taking my own picture etc.

I understand the costs involved in the processing of prints etc but we did not just pay for the images, we paid for the photographer too. We paid £350 which I am perfectly happy with, unfortunately we found him to be the only one who could offer his services for that price. Everyone else was over £800.

I already have the EOS 30D, 24-105mm f/4 L lens, 430EX flash, BG-E2 Grip, several batteries and four or five memory cards.

I'm currently bidding on the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 USM lens on fleabay from the official Canon store.

So really i'm looking for suggestions for another body and perhaps one telephotolens of excelent quality. So maybe a budget in the region of £1200.