The Bare Minimum Lenses for Weddings

[Graybeard]

1) What would be the bare minimum number of and type of lenses required to
do a wedding shoot?...(for a 1D Mk3...bare minimum due to budget)

2) would these two lenses be of any use?
EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

[SoaringUSAEagle]

24-70
70-200 2.8 IS

I removed the 135L. I have no idea why I said that. Sometimers moment. :)

[picturecrazy]

The 24-105 will work. The 75-300 would work for an outdoor wedding, but not too great for indoors no flash work. You could still use it for flashed indoor work where your flash exposure is higher than your ambient exposure but I would set it at F/8 for optimal sharpness. It will have a lot of difficulty focusing though, and it will eat through batteries at F/8.

[cosworth]

24-70
70-200 2.8

[picturecrazy]

Are you saying you have a 1d3 already or are choosing the 1d3 due to budget... if so, what were you hoping to get, a hasselblad? wow.
For the price of a 1d3, you could buy two 40D's, 17-55, 70-200 F/2.8IS, and 580EX and be just about FULLY stocked up for wedding shooting.

Also, are you saying you already have the 24-105 and 75-300?

[RobKirkwood]

Bare minimum: 24-70 f2.8, or a couple of primes.

Rob

[stathunter]

1d3 and budget do not go together.

[Bailly Photography]

x2 bodies.
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8

[Graybeard]

Are you saying you have a 1d3 already or are choosing the 1d3 due to budget... if so, what were you hoping to get, a hasselblad? wow.
For the price of a 1d3, you could buy two 40D's, 17-55, 70-200 F/2.8IS, and 580EX and be just about FULLY stocked up for wedding shooting.

Also, are you saying you already have the 24-105 and 75-300?

These are what i have already along with 580EX II & Timer Remote:)

thanks for your input

[Graybeard]

1d3 and budget do not go together.

not for wanting to get cheap stuff, just one or two good lenses instead of three or four notsogood lenses...Rome was not built in one day;)

[stathunter]

...Rome was not built in one day;)

Does that mean that you actually where there when they built it? HA....just kidding. :lol:

[rhys]

I used a 30D, 17-85IS and 420EX for a wedding I did free for a poverty-stricken secretary.

It worked for me. For full frame the 24-105 sounds good. You might want to use a 70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 f2.8 IS as well.

[Graybeard]

Does that mean that you actually where there when they built it? HA....just kidding. :lol:

:lol:

[nicolerork]

24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8

I use the 24-70 90% of the time. I just use the 70-200 for ceremony and formals.

[Graybeard]

24-70 f2.8 & 70-200 f2.8 seem to be the ones of choice...would the 24-70 replace 24-105 or would the 24-105 do ok in place of 24-70...as i already have the 24-105
(does that make sense?):confused:

[picturecrazy]

24-70 f2.8 & 70-200 f2.8 seem to be the ones of choice...would the 24-70 replace 24-105 or would the 24-105 do ok in place of 24-70...as i already have the 24-105
(does that make sense?):confused:

I'd say the 24-70 it more or less replaces it. I have both because sometimes I like to have a stabilizer for certain types of shots. You can shoot a wedding with the 24-105. I have a number of times.

And it may be worthy to note, you'll want the IS version of the 70-200 F/2.8 lens. Don't bother with the non-is version because you'll eventually sell it and buy the IS version... if you are shooting weddings.

[Graybeard]

I'd say the 24-70 it more or less replaces it. I have both because sometimes I like to have a stabilizer for certain types of shots. You can shoot a wedding with the 24-105. I have a number of times.

And it may be worthy to note, you'll want the IS version of the 70-200 F/2.8 lens. Don't bother with the non-is version because you'll eventually sell it and buy the IS version... if you are shooting weddings.

thanks for that

[Banbert]

I used a 30D, 17-85IS and 420EX for a wedding I did free for a poverty-stricken secretary.

It worked for me. For full frame the 24-105 sounds good. You might want to use a 70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 f2.8 IS as well.

1D MKIII isnt full frame though, its 1.3 crop isnt it ?


2 Bodies minimum for a wedding, even if one of thems a 1D MKIII .... they can and do go wrong and not being able to take shots would be unforgiveable no matter how little you charged.

If its indoors then anything less than 2.8 could be a real struggle, and having at least one fast prime to fall back on is a definite advantage as no flash during ceremony is common, certainly in my part of the word it is anyway.

When we started out in this business just over a year ago I had an idea of how we could get started by adding £1,500 worth of gear to what we already had, thankfully we quickly realised before we shot our first proper wedding that it just wasnt realistic and invested considerably more (over £20,000 to date I think) to give ourselves several levels of redundancy ..... and even on our first wedding we used that redundancy, with a body failing completely and a lens being damaged.

As businesses go its still quite cheap to get started I reckon but it deffo needs some investment imo otherwise you could very quickly run into problems.

[Graybeard]

1D MKIII isnt full frame though, its 1.3 crop isnt it ?


2 Bodies minimum for a wedding, even if one of themas a D MK III .... they can and do go wrong and not being able to take shots would be unforgivable no matter how little you charged.

If its indoors then anything less than 2.8 could be a real struggle, and having at least one fast prime to fall back on is a definite advantage as no flash during ceremony is common, certainly in my part of the word it is anyway.

When we started out in this business just over a year ago I had an idea of how we could get started by adding £1,500 worth of gear to what we already had, thankfully we quickly realised before we shot our first proper wedding that it just wasnt realistic and invested considerably more (over £20,000 to date I think) to give ourselves several levels of redundancy ..... and even on our first wedding we used that redundancy, with a body failing completely and a lens being damaged.

As businesses go its still quite cheap to get started I reckon but it deffo needs some investment imo otherwise you could very quickly run into problems.

yes, 1.3 crop
yes i am very much aware that 2 bodies is pretty much essential, i most likely will have to hire a second at first...thanks for the rest of your info, it really is noted

[picturecrazy]

2 Bodies minimum for a wedding, even if one of thems a 1D MKIII ....

YES!!! totally!

On sunday during a shoot, right on the first picture my Mark III refused to shoot. It was totally messed up! The mirror wouldn't flip up. Not for a picture, not for mirror lockup, not for sensor cleaning. When it would try to lift the mirror it would mess up and then kinda 'reboot' and go through the same procedure as if I had just turned it on. Wouldn't work no matter what. 3 hours later after fiddling, it suddenly started working again.

I thought the 1-series would be much less prone to this kind of stuff... but after 1.5 years my 30D has never left me dry like the Mark III did. I now have more confidence in my 30D than my Mark III. :(


So DEFINITELY a second body is a MUST.

[Graybeard]

double noted...you guys trying to scare me:(
u ever find out what caused that to happen..as that is pretty worring

[RobKirkwood]

As you've got the 24-105 IS I'd say use that, Ann did the whole day at our wedding this last weekend with just 24-105 IS on a 5D (I alternated between 24-70 f2.8 on 5D and 70-200 f2.8 IS on 20D).

Maybe get a good value wide aperture prime you could use as a backup, or in case you needed the low light performance - e.g. the 50mm f1.4, but it might be a bit too long on 1.3 crop?

Can't comment on the 75-300 as we've never had one, but I think the minimum aperture and lack of IS will mean it struggles to be truly useful at a wedding.

For backup camera 20D's are available very cheaply now second-hand, maybe find a nice one, then sell it on again later?

Rob

[tim]

Bare minimum is what you have, plus a backup camera and backup lens with a range in the 24-50 kinda range (eg 17-55 on a 1.6X crop, 24-70 on 1.3X crop, etc). Flash, spare flash.

The first time your equipment fails you'll be glad you had decent backup equipment. And it's not if your equipment fails, it's when.

[nicolerork]

24-70 f2.8 & 70-200 f2.8 seem to be the ones of choice...would the 24-70 replace 24-105 or would the 24-105 do ok in place of 24-70...as i already have the 24-105
(does that make sense?):confused:

No, you'll want a wider aperture.

[rhys]

1D MKIII isnt full frame though, its 1.3 crop isnt it ?


2 Bodies minimum for a wedding, even if one of thems a 1D MKIII .... they can and do go wrong and not being able to take shots would be unforgiveable no matter how little you charged.

If its indoors then anything less than 2.8 could be a real struggle, and having at least one fast prime to fall back on is a definite advantage as no flash during ceremony is common, certainly in my part of the word it is anyway.

When we started out in this business just over a year ago I had an idea of how we could get started by adding £1,500 worth of gear to what we already had, thankfully we quickly realised before we shot our first proper wedding that it just wasnt realistic and invested considerably more (over £20,000 to date I think) to give ourselves several levels of redundancy ..... and even on our first wedding we used that redundancy, with a body failing completely and a lens being damaged.

As businesses go its still quite cheap to get started I reckon but it deffo needs some investment imo otherwise you could very quickly run into problems.

I'm no sure that cropped lenses would work with 1.3 crop. In any case I'm not sure what crop factor the 1DMk3 has.

I shot my 1st wedding with two bodies. I had the 30D with the 420EX and 17-85IS and in my bag ready for action, my XT with Tamron 17-35 and 28-75. I didn't have a backup flash - couldn't even get a 430EX in time for that wedding. I just hoped that the on-camera flash would have been good in an emergency.

[tim]

I'm no sure that cropped lenses would work with 1.3 crop. In any case I'm not sure what crop factor the 1DMk3 has.

The 1D3 has a 1.3X sensor, and does not work with EF-S lenses. You need EF lenses. Given the price and quality of the camera I think L lenses are a worthy investment.

[rhys]

The 1D3 has a 1.3X sensor, and does not work with EF-S lenses. You need EF lenses. Given the price and quality of the camera I think L lenses are a worthy investment.

Ah. I wasn't sure. I do agree though that if you're going to blow so much dosh on a body then top-quality lenses make more sense.

[Banbert]

I'm no sure that cropped lenses would work with 1.3 crop. In any case I'm not sure what crop factor the 1DMk3 has.

I shot my 1st wedding with two bodies. I had the 30D with the 420EX and 17-85IS and in my bag ready for action, my XT with Tamron 17-35 and 28-75. I didn't have a backup flash - couldn't even get a 430EX in time for that wedding. I just hoped that the on-camera flash would have been good in an emergency.


As tims already said, no they wont.

We shoot with 5 bodies and 4 flashes between the 2 of us, probably 6 bodies and 5 or 6 flashes between the 2 of us for next year .. that way we have a 17-55 and 70-200 each thats stays mounted at all times and the third body stays in the bag and swaps between 100mm macro, 10-22 and 30mm 1.4 for me and 8mm fisheye, 50mm 1.4 and 60mm macro for my shooting partner for a few shots at each wedding.

Given the issues with cameras, lenses and flashes we have had this year I feel much safer with the amount of gear we have.

[Graybeard]

excuse my ignorance, but are EF-S lenses refered to as cropped lenses?

[16.7 BigFiles]

24-70 2.8 L is what I use for most things. family gatherings, group shots, walking in the woods, very versatile. 70-200 2.8L is razor sharp and lightning fast. maybe also a 100mm macro for portraits. but if in budget the 85 1.2L is the sexyiest lens made in my opinion. you can shoot it in a dark closet (well a large dark closet) and the picture quality and bg blur is scary(good)

[mcmadkat]

excuse my ignorance, but are EF-S lenses refered to as cropped lenses?

I think so, although I have never heard them being called that before.

For a 1DIII you can only use EF, so that rules out the 17-55 which is a nice lens.

[Harleypugs]

Sounds like to me....after reading all of this...the best advice someone could give you is get on with someone and be a second shooter now. Sounds like you could use it. Trust me...I am in the same position you are and I wouldn't dream of taking on a wedding at this point.

IMHO

Jon

[cdifoto]

I could do an entire wedding with just my 1D II and 24-70mm....assuming I was ok with most images being pretty mundane. As in no crazy fun uberwide stuff (12mm), no tight headshots full of emotion from a distance (200mm), etc. The 24-70 is an excellent lens and very versatile, but it's not really "fun."

[Chris R/T]

Great thread! I was asked by a family member to shoot a wedding next October, so I've book marked this thread, and my wallet for what I'm going to need.

I've got a 350D and a 20D, I'm assuming those bodies are OK to use for a wedding? I've got a couple of fast primes (50, 85 1.8 ), and the Tamron 28-75 F2.8. What else should I get to shoot the wedding? It seems as many are recommending the 70-200F2.8. Would that be L glass or is the Sigma a good alternative?

I've also got two 420EX flashes, should I carry anything else with me?

[rhys]

The 430EX will be fine as long as you give yourself room by upping your ISO to 400. The recycle time is quite long on them. Think about using a white reflector to spread the light more in order to avoid harsh shadows.

Sigma does make a fast 70-200 but it's only $200 less than the Canon and IMHO not worth buying because of that.

[Graybeard]

Sounds like to me....after reading all of this...the best advice someone could give you is get on with someone and be a second shooter now. Sounds like you could use it. Trust me...I am in the same position you are and I wouldn't dream of taking on a wedding at this point.

IMHO

Jon

never really thought of being a second shooter...got me thinking now, most likely will be quite difficult to find someone, but you are quite right

[TitusvilleSurfer]

You were going to hire a 2nd shooter because you can't afford a backup camera and you have never shot a wedding? Granted I'm no expert but I can tell my own kind. You have one of the most expensive bodies Canon makes and apparently little concept how to use it. Your not ready for this. Don't ruin some poor girl's day that she has been dreaming about since she was 4 years old. You need to sit down and read...and read. Then you need to stretch, walk your dog, make some coffee, and read some more.

[liza]

Bare minimum:
2 bodies with same or similar controls and batteries
2 flashes
1 midrange telephoto zoom (IS is nice, but not required)
1 longer telephoto zoom or prime
At least one backup lens
Extra batteries
16 GB of memory

Optional:
Macro lens or extension tubes/close up filter
Prime lens for bridal portraits/extremely low lit venues

[Mario.]

Almost everyone has mentioned the 24-70 in this thread as opposed to the 17-55 IS. Decisions decisions, I can't make up my mind!

[liza]

Almost everyone has mentioned the 24-70 in this thread as opposed to the 17-55 IS. Decisions decisions, I can't make up my mind!

The reason for that is that the OP said he has a 1D MkIII. You can't use EF-S lenses with it.

[Mario.]

The reason for that is that the OP said he has a 1D MkIII. You can't use EF-S lenses with it.

Drr. Good call. :)