 Andrea Tuft |
Wedding Photography: What to Buy First? I have loved photography for a long time, but I'm trying to make some money now. I bought a Digital Rebel w/lens 28-55(basic), 70-300 Canon telephoto ISO lens, and a 420ex flash. My question is I am doing my first wedding in a couple of weeks and wanted to get an everyday lens - Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and Custom Brackets QRS35H 35mm - but I can't afford both. I wanted to know which one would get me the best results for a indoor wedding?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Instead of the $169 bracket from Custom Brackets, you could get the $65 Stroboframe Camera Flip or the $45 Stroboframe Quickflip 350. Both will do what you need. You will also need to get the Canon Off-Camera Shoe Cord 2. B&H photo has it for $49.95 Good luck.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karma Wilson |
You want some sort of good, fast lens for an indoor wedding. If you're at the end of your budget, you can get the 50mm 1.8 for $80. It's a good lens (not well-made, but for that price no big loss) and very fast, meaning it can open very wide to shoot in low light. It will get you by for available light shots that are so gorgeous in weddings, but you have to move more without the zoom that some wedding officials find annoying. Still, you can't go wrong at that price. If you have more money, then get a Tamron 28-75 f2.8, which is a VERY highly rated lens in the $300 range.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrea Tuft |
Thank you both. It's nice to know that there is inexpensive equipment out there worth buying. I will look into both of those suggestions. I just upgraded my flash to the Canon 500EX. I hope it was worth the money.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David S. Nadal |
Also, you might consider renting a faster lens: there should be at least one 'serious' camera vendor in your area with a rental dept. It'll give you a chance to try out a variety of good glass while you save enough money to buy what you want. I recently rented a Canon 85mm f/1.2L for an indoor sporting event...the AF was a bit slow for that purpose, but it could be ideal for a wedding. But! Don't forget the 1.6x sensor factor: in my case, the effective focal length of the 85mm lens worked out to be 135mm. With a prime lens, it means that you have to zoom in and out with your feet. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kris Lingle |
I shot an indoor wedding in June and would really reccommend getting a faster lens. Many churches won't allow flash during the ceremony and a 1.8 lens would help tremendously.
|
|
|
|
||
|
perry cooper |
Andrea, Seems to me you are missing one of the most important lenses for this style of photography. That is a fixed either 1.4, 1.8, or f2 85mm lens for your single and double portraits. Yes you do have that range covered in your 70-300 lens but it's a big lens with not quite as good optics than a fixed. It's also nice to be able to put down the big zoom in light of the portrait moment. I also doubt that the zoom has a minimal f-stop no less than 4.5-5.6? You can get more creative with the 1.8 85 with shallow depth of field bridal portraits. There are of course mant options.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
Yes, definitely the 550EX was worth the extra money. The 420 just doesn't have the reach that the 550 does. You'll be adjusting your flash exposure compensation every now and then, and the 550 has the controls right on the flash itself whereas with the 420 you have to do it through the camera, something you don't have time for at a wedding. Also, now you can use your 420 as a slave unit and get dual flash. Try backlighting the couple during the first dance; have the 420 fire behind them, lighting up the bride's veil. (Set your 550 to +1 for this.) I use my 85mm 1.8 lens quite often during a wedding. I would not recommend using the 70-300; the optics are not sharp enough for a wedding, and that extra focal length would just hang there, unused, and be in the way. You'll need a wider angle also, especially with your digital, so get yourself a Tokina (or similar) 19-35mm. It's about $175, and very sharp. The Tamron 28-70 fixed 2.8 is a very good lens, but I don't use mine (unless I need the speed or wider aperture) for one reason; it's heavy for me. (Sorry, gang, I have weak muscles.) I replaced it with a Canon 35-135 for about $300. For $100 more you can get a 28-135 IS (Image Stabilizer), which would be better for your digital because of the 1.6x factor. But if you don't mind the little bit of extra weight, get that Tamron 28-70 2.8. Tamron (or Tokina - I forgot which) also makes a 24-135 f/3.5-5.6 for $399 which gives you a wider angle but a smaller maximum aperture. You do need a bracket, because you shouldn't put the flash directly on the camera; your flash needs to be above the lens for vertical shots.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrea Tuft |
Wow! Thank you guys. I makes me realise how much I need to learn. If you could buy one lense for an indoor wedding that you wouldn't need a flash for what would it be? It would also be nice if it worked well for indoor sports. Wouldn't it be nice if money really did grow on trees?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
If you're only going to buy one lens, get the 28-70 f/2.8. Does it work for indoor sports? Well, yes and no. This can't be answered in just a few words. Yes, because it's a lens (sorry), and you can get an f/2.8 aperture, but the major difference between wedding and sports photography is that people are for the most part standing still at a wedding ceremony, and they're moving at somewhat rapid speeds playing sports. So, your shutter speed comes into play. You can use quite a slow shutter speed at a wedding ceremony, even 1/4 second or slower (tripod-mounted camera), and if no one moves your image will be sharp, but how are you gonna use such a slow shutter speed at a sporting event? You might need a 1/125 speed or faster to stop action. Those images you see in sports magazines are photographed with very fast, very long, and extremely expensive lenses, ones that cost several thousand dollars. That 28-105 would probably only be able to capture the whole playing area, or perhaps a bit closer, depending on where you sit. So you really need at least a 300mm fast lens. You could go a little cheaper by getting a 70-200 f/2.8. That will only cost you about a thousand. And it will give you a 200mm focal length, also very useful for weddings for those close-ups, and good for sports too. But it's heavy; I can barely hold one, but I've seen other photographers hang this lens around their necks. Ouch! Regardless of the lens, you can get extra speed by, of course, using high-speed film (or digital setting). I use Fuji NPZ 800 or Kodak Portra 800, but even with my 85mm f/1.8 lens, some churches are so dark that I have to struggle hand-holding the camera at an f/1.8 setting. Some solutions: Have the film pushed 1 stop. You can also try (ouch, some Pro photographers might slap me for this) Konica's 1600 film or Fuji Superia 1600. I've used the Konica 1600 for wedddings. It's not bad if you must have that speed. And it's OK for sports. I photographed a concert with it this weekend, and the images looked great. (Note: A few years ago I went nuts and switched from my Pro films to Konica's for a few weddings to save money. Except to try the 1600 film if you must have the speed, DON'T DO THIS!) Now, back to the 28-70mm. The 70mm might not be long enough for portraits. For head shots you really need around 105mm, or you could also use Canon's 85mm f/1.8, and excellent portrait lens and faster than the 28-70 f/2.8. So find a tree that grows money and get a couple of nice lenses. But, your most useful lens is one that I didn't mention. It would be a Canon 28-105. Not for available-light, but for outdoors, for portraits, or where you can use flash, you'll be using it 90% of the time. This lens is basically a necessity for me; I have and use 2 of them. (Actually, the other one is a 35-135 f/3.5-5.6, but they're basically the same.)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrea Tuft |
So so so much to learn. Thank you for all the help. I have been looking into buying a 85mm 1.8 lens. I found a canon for $70 and one for $350. I'm sure for the money there are huge differences but I was wondering if it was just the quality of the lens. I was wondering if the cheaper one would be worth it sense I am just starting out.
|
|
|
|
||
|
perry cooper |
Andrea, Just to give you an idea as far as lens selection for weddings. I use the following. 20-35mm/2.8, 35-70mm/2.8 and 80-200mm/2.8. I work with 2 bodies with a 3rd for back up. I also have a 1.8 85 for portraits so I can put down the large zoom temporarily. Hopes this helps.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
Andrea, the Canon 85mm 1.8 lens can not be $70; it's actually $330 for the import price, and $350 USA price (but you get a $25 rebate on this one). Canon's $70 1.8 lens is not an 85mm; it's a 50mm. I've always been happier with the Canon lenses; most of the other ones are louder and slower with the autofocus, and the Canons just "feel" better. I've had 2 Sigma lenses that I got rid of; both of them ended up needing repair that wasn't worth the cost, plus they were noticeably less sharp. The only exceptions for me are my two Tokinas: 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5, and 28-70mm f/2.8. These are very sharp, and cost less than the Canons. I'd love to own an 80-200 f/2.8 like Perry does; I just can't lug it around, much less lift it up to my face!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrea Tuft |
You guys help alot, thanks you very much. You are right Maria I wasn't paying very much attention to the details(big detail). I'm not sure what to buy because I will do some weddings but my first loves are childrens candid and action shots.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kris Lingle |
I think I would go for the 50mm Canon. A fellow classmate uses it for candid children shots and has gotten some awesome results. The low light cabability of the faster lense is great. It would be about an 80mm when put on the digital rebel.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Aaron Reyes |
i used my canon 28-105 3.5-5.6 to do recon for a wedding i'm doing next weekend and it's just not wide enough. I think I would get by with it, but i'm not going to risk it. i'm going to use my 18-55mm for indoors (29-88 equiv. FOV crop) i'm going to use the nicer 28-105 outdoors for portraits and whatnot. bump up the iso a smidge and use a flash and your indoors will look great. don't forget fill flash outdoors, especially if it's sunny...
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kris Lingle |
Aaron, Be sure to check with the church to make sure flash is ok. The last wedding I did the priest requested no flash. That made it tough to shoot with the 18-55 EFS as it is just not quite fast enough.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
What's so great about BP is the wealth of information contained here. Check out this link on portrait lenses for wedding photography. http://www.betterphoto.com/articles/Portrait-Lenses-for-Wedding-Photography.php
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
Kris, there is nothing wrong with Andrea getting a 50mm lens; it is quite good. The only thing is that she already has that focal length with her 28-55. So, Andrea, you are the best judge of what you need. If you're used to zoom lenses, you'll get more out of them when doing your children's action shots, since you can zoom in and out very quickly, and get both a wide angle and a telephoto shot of a child doing something. Same thing for weddings. You could get a wide angle shot of the couple doing their ring exchange, then quickly zoom in to get a close-up of the ring on the finger. I also have a 50mm Macro f/2.5. It's about $280. Not only is it a very good macro lens, but it also makes a great regular 50mm lens. I use it to get a close-up of the rings nested inside the bride's bouquet and for other small things. It's about a full stop slower than the 50mm 1.8, but I use my 85mm lens to get a 1.8 aperture. Even with all my lenses -- I bring 6 or 7 to a wedding and sometimes use them all for different things -- I still occasionally wish I had this or that kind of lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrea Tuft |
You guys really know what you are doing. Thank you for the help. Any 1.8 lens is probably going to be pretty expensive if it has much of a zoom. I think I'll find out how much I could rent one for.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kathy L. Pollick |
I went to the photo store yesterday to pick up a good lens for taking pix at my daughter's upcoming wedding. I currently have a AF 50mm 1:17 (22) and I have a Kalimar AF zoom 1:3.5 - 5.6 f/28 - 200mm (072) (these number's mean nothing to me yet). The saleslady said if I had the 28-200, I wouldn't need another lens that it would serve the purpose nicely. (I was looking at a 28-105mm). Wouldn't a telephoto lens do a better job than this? These are the only 2 lenses I currently have & when I buy more, I want them to be a good sharp lens, but also a versatile lens that will get much use, as this is only a hobby for me at this point. Thanks for your suggestions
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
Mrs. Pollick, are you really planning to take pictures at your own daughter's wedding? Please don't do this. I don't know if you've hired a professional photographer, but if you didn't, please do this immediately. If you don't know "what those numbers on the lenses" mean, you will not do any justice to your daughters pictures. These numbers tell you what aperture settings are available on your lenses, and a wedding photographer sets those manually. Do you know how to properly pose a bridal couple? Do you know how to compose beautiful shots? Do you know how to expose in different lighting situations? Now, if you did hire a professional, he isn't going to allow you to take photos of his arranged poses anyway. It is highly irritating to a wedding photographer to have happy snapshooters around him while he is doing the altar pictures, plus he alone is entitled to take photos of his poses that he spent years perfecting how to do. Now, putting all that aside, you are the mother of the bride. You should be a part of the wedding. Someone who is behind a camera is not part of the wedding. I am a professional photographer and I decided to take photos at my parents' 50th Wedding Anniversary. That was a mistake. This was one of the happiest days of my life, and I barely felt that I was a part of it, because my face was behind the camera. So, wait until after the wedding, and then pursue your photographic hobby.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kathy L. Pollick |
Maria, thanks for the advice. The only reason I am concerned about getting a few nice shots of the wedding is because the groom's family hired a "friend of the family" who is just getting into professional photography... I don't know her, nor do I know if she's even any good. I do know, she's doing it either for free or for a small fee as a way to gain experience.... THIS makes me VERY nervous. She is also simply taking the pix & handing them all over to us to do what we want with them!!! This I am not happy about. I was hoping to get nicely edited pictures. HOWEVER, due to funds being tight, I can't seem to argue with this. And yes, I will be IN the wedding (Matron of honor) so I won't be snapping photos while the photographer is doing her thing, but I do want to get a few special pix of the couple for myself. I purchased a diffusion filter & want to get some special pix in poses that I've seen in magazines. They don't have to be professional looking (& I'm sure if I'm taking them they won't be) but at least I'll know I have the shots. I'm just going to leave the camera set in the auto program mode, just so long as I know I have a fairly sharp lens (& the correct size), then I'll be satisfied. It was a toss up between a catered wedding or a professional photographer & the caterer won out. So I'm just praying this newbie is better than me!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
perry cooper |
Hi kathy, I think it would actually be ok for you to bring a camera and take some snaps at the wedding. Perhaps just a few. Before the ceremony some during portraits (while your not in any pictures), and at the reception when you can fit it in. As far as a professional not wanting others to snap pictures of his portrait set-ups? I only find this true in traditional photographers who are otherwise slightly difficult to work with or think they are above others. Any photographer that gets peaved when others are trying to capture there own moments with a camera are either insecure or on a power trip. Actually more and more professionals are now shooting different styles like lifestyle, photojournalistic etc..... You aren't likely to experience the "it's my image" with those types of photographers. If I were you I would bring one camera body and a 35-70/2.8 and all will be well. You have every right to have some of your own images without sacrificing the quality of the day. By the way kathy, your 28-200 will do just fine. However I would replace it with a higher quality product in the near future. Oh By the way I am a professional wedding photographer in Central Ca. Hope I have helped. Perry.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kris Lingle |
I don't think it is an "its my image" problem so much as the people in the pose tend to not know where to look for the formals. I have had problems with the wedding party looking all directions when there are others taking their snapshots at the same time as me. I now ask that they wait until I finish then they can shoot quickly before I move on to another pose.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
First, for Kathy. Your "friend of the family" makes me nervous too, because I remember what my photos looked like when I was just a "friend of the family!" Perhaps you can hire a professional for just a few hours or just for the ceremony. Find a studio that offers a 2-hour package. I don't know where you are, but some of my studios in Chicago charge just a few hundred dollars for this, and you get to keep the proofs. To comment on Perry's statements, everyone has different rules and regulations that work for them. I never told Kathy to not take any snapshots; it sounded like she was intending on doing most of the photography herself. When I work for other studios, I am always under orders to not allow snapshooters to take photos of my poses. But they are allowed to take as many candids as they wish. When I book my own jobs, I relax the rules a bit. However, when using manual flash, I really don't want to take the chance of someone else's flash messing up my exposure. Plus, every time I have to pause a moment to allow someone else to shoot, that cuts into my time, and I'd rather get that "one more shot" for the bridal couple. I've actually had guests asking to plug my lights into their camera at the backdrop and say "It's cheaper to get this on my camera than to order a print from you." No one is insecure or on a power trip here, but to repeat what I've stated: Why should a pro use his expertise to pose a group, and then have someone else get the shot and his studio loses a sale? If that's the case then, the pro can just come without any equipment, do the poses, and have everyone else shoot with their own cameras. Hey, this would be easy. But seriously, whenever a guest wants to take a posed shot, I let them pose the couple first, and then I do my own thing. I am, by the way, both traditional and a photojournalist, depending on the studio that sends me out and the bride and grooms wishes. The above applies to when I'm doing traditional photography, and, no Perry, I am not at all difficult to work with. If you're ever in Chicago, let's do a wedding together and I'll prove it to ya! (lol)
|
|
|
|
||
|
perry cooper |
Yeah whatever works for one may not work for another I suppose. Every photography studio or photographer has their pet peeves. Since my packages are pre-sold and the customers keep the negatives anyway, I am not worried about anyone taking snaps of stuff that I set up. It's really more time consuming to stop and announce to everyone not to take snaps of any portraits. On top of that it never comes across as a positive. Besides anyone else getting as good a shot as me is doubtful considering the equipment their using, lighting etc......Like I was saying before it's just another one of those gray area photog things. Everyone has different styles and functions of the profession. Oh by the way Maria, anytime your in Central Cal your welcome to come along on a shoot and have fun!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Aaron Reyes |
i'm with coop! seems too much of a hassle to even worry about it. to each his/her own though... like kris L. said though. check if you can use a flash for the wedding your shooting, and if not consider a faster lens..
|
|
|
|
||
|
Daniel S. Waits |
Every body here has a good point with the pros and cons of wedding photog. Also about the friend of the family wedding photographer and how that can be a grave mistake. I've been in the buissness now for 9 years as a part time thing on weekends and work a full time job, I think this is a great webb site for individuals to compare and share thoughts together. Look forward to hearing from anybody who wants to share thoughts and ideas about wedding portiats.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||