[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.

[inkinoo]

Originally Posted by roset3

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.

That comment would suggest you don't understand the concept of profit and operating costs. I would suggest you look at those before setting up this business and spending money on equipment.

[inkinoo]

Originally Posted by denno75uk

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.

Back in 2001, myself and a photographer friend did exactly that.

In fact we took it even further. As we were shooting digital, we would bring a 20" panel to the reception and show the images we had shot throughout the day. I can't describe the reaction to that from the guests; it was magical.

By the Monday after the wedding, a selection of photos would be available on a website for people to select, place in a basket, save and then order to be delivered within in 48 hours. We offered all the images at 800 x 600 to download for free; just enough to be useful to view and keep on the computer but not enough quality to get printed.

For the bride and groom, we loaned them a laptop where they could go through all the photos and select the ones they wanted. We would then meet up, show how some could be cropped, turned into black and white etc.

In 2001, doing all of this was very challenging and very costly. Decent dSLRs were expensive, as was creating the website, the 20 inch panel, laptops etc. I reckon if we setup the same business now it would be significantly easier and cheaper.

We've been out of the market for so long now (we stopped in late 2002 because we both had excellent career moves; photography was always a weekend thing) that there are probably loads of people doing it now. But in 2001 I didn't know of anyone who did what we did.

Ah, a trip down memory lane ...

[atr1981]

I know enough about profit and operating costs having run a small business a few years ago. I decided in the end that I wanted to join the military so gave that up.

He doesn't have many operating costs, he works from home.

He charged us for the day and then the pictures. The £12.50 was for extra prints. That is where I think people get stung, he had already done the hardwork when producing the album.

I'm not saying our photographer was expensive. I was perfectly happy to pay him his fee as it was half the price of the other competition and as far as i can tell no difference in quality.

I also already have most of the equipment needed so would not need to include that from my profits and costs.

[inkinoo]

Originally Posted by roset3

He doesn't have many operating costs, he works from home as a part time photographer.

He charged us for the day and then the pictures. The £12.50 was for extra prints. So it is not really relevant as he already done the hardwork when producing the album. If we did not buy extra's he would make no more profit.

How do you know what operating costs he has? Do you know what his business plan is? The answer to both of those questions is no.

It could be he planned on a certain % of people buying the extra prints so his total takehome from the job was £xxx.

[atr1981]

Anyway, back to the original question.

With a budget of £1200 what would you suggest for a second main lens and a backup body.

[atr1981]

Well you obviously are more interested in slating my business ideas than helping me with my original question so perhaps a moderator can close this post and i'll ask someone who can give me some proper advice.

[inkinoo]

Originally Posted by roset3

Well you obviously are more interested in slating my business ideas than helping me with my original question so perhaps a moderator can close this post and i'll ask someone who can give me some proper advice.

If you notice I just gave you, for free, a guide to a business that was successful in 2001/2002 when equipment costs were high. Apply that in 2007, we cheaper equipment, and you could make a lot of money and have a unique angle to wedding photography.

As for 2nd body, get a 2nd hand 30d as you can share accessories and settings. 17-55mm is a good choice, as is a fisheye lens. Another more than 100mm is a bonus for wedding photography. Most of the classic wedding photos can be shot on your 17-55.

Other lens to get is a f/1.x something for churches where you can't use flashes.

Moving forward, next one to get is 14mm non fisheye and then maybe the 70-200mm if you don't already have it.

Oh, and get crap loads of flash cards. And 2 1gb cards are always better than 1 2gb.

[Radiohead]

[QUOTE=roset3;5190955]I know this is just a conversation so I have no problems with answering the questions.

Good man

Originally Posted by roset3

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.

OK - the only word of caution here is to understand the pressure when you are doing it for money. Weddings are tough gigs and you can't reshoot.

Originally Posted by roset3

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.

£350 is ultra, ultra cheap. I'd love to see how he does that and makes a profit, unless he recoups on printing costs and that brings us back to the beginning. £800 is still not pricey IMO. Far from it.

Originally Posted by roset3

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.

Good - budget for another flash (580EX so you can use it for wireless command).

Originally Posted by roset3

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

Good - it's a fine lens

Originally Posted by roset3

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.

30D and some fast glass - 28/1.8 or 30/1.4 plus a faster medium tele like an 85/1.8. A 70-200/2.8IS would be an ultimate aim but out of budget for now.

[tomson]

Don't be put off by peoples opinions mate - if you want to do something, go for it.
There is a huge market for budget wedding shoots - more than half the weddings I shoot are my budget package (which is about 500 quid) and I get a lot of positive feedback from couples regarding this package. Many don't want to spend thousands on their photography, they simply don't have the money, some couples have been together for years and are getting married in a relatively low-key, low-budget ceremony, some people are on their 2nd or 3rd marriage etc etc... the market is definitely there though.
What you need to be careful about is making even the budget packages pay - work out a day rate you'd be happy with and see how long a job will take. I aim for 200-300 per day and so with my budget package I aim to have it all done in 2 days (half a day visiting the client, 1 day shooting, half a day processing - or there abouts). But you also have to make sure that the final product is up to scratch quality-wise - £50K wedding or £5K wedding, the bride wants the same thing - stunning pictures.

As for a second body - something similar to what you have would be the obvious choice, so a 20D or 30D (They can be had for 450 used if you keep an eye out). Lens wise - I've already given my preferred choice.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by tomson

Don't be put off by peoples opinions mate - if you want to do something, go for it.

Agreed - but do so with eyes wide open. That's all I'm getting at here. Speaking for myself I'm not interested in the budget end. That's not snobbery btw, even if it comes across that way.

Originally Posted by tomson

But you also have to make sure that the final product is up to scratch quality-wise - £50K wedding or £5K wedding, the bride wants the same thing - stunning pictures.

That's the crux and I made a similar point earlier.

[atr1981]

Thank you all for your honest opinions.

I'm not about to go out and ruin somebodys big day.

I'm looking at going on a couple of wedding shoot courses and seminars to learn the finer techniques too.