lenses for 20D...wedding photography??

[lisa.ireland]

I'm going to purchase a 20D for wedding photography. i can purchase body only, 18-55mm kit lens for 100euro more, or the 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS lens kit for 400euro more than body only. should i bother with the kit lenses, or just get the body and a 24-70 L f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS separately?
Thanks for the tips!

[blinking8s]

If you need the wide lens then I dont see why not for 100 more...its not a GREAT lens but its not bad. I just hate the build quality. I could easliy survive with a 24-70 L and not complain though. From time to time its noce to get that wide angle shot though.

[Eric DeCastro]

hi speed lights would be good, you have to remember you might not get to use a flash there. 85 1.8 / 135L / 24mm for group shots

[mikesd]

Also add a 50mm f/1.4 or the f 1.8 in your bag for low light situations. Can't beat 1.8 for the money. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12142&is=USA

[Tomasz Dziechciarz]

Hi,
I take weddings so:
17-40/4 L and 70-200/4 L as a base.
28/2,8 50/1,8 85/1,8
2 flashes 550EX
STo-fen, Lastolite silver/gold

Above in my oppionion the best set for 20D from the cost/quality/weight point of view.

Rgds TOMASZ

[WestFalcon]

I like the 24-70 but it may not be wide enough for all situations with the 20D. If I could only take two lenses to a wedding, it would be the 28-135 IS and the 17-40L. These are my most used lenses at a wedding and both add up to about $1000. Neither are fast but both are sharp and the 28-135 has a great zoom range for candids. I use 580 EX flashes with pocket bouncers on them.

[DaveG]

I'm going to purchase a 20D for wedding photography. i can purchase body only, 18-55mm kit lens for 100euro more, or the 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS lens kit for 400euro more than body only. should i bother with the kit lenses, or just get the body and a 24-70 L f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS separately?
Thanks for the tips!

What is your back up body? Do you have two flashes? You'll need at least two lenses that go from (in full frame terms) 35-105 mm in focal length. This redundency is incredibly important for wedding photography since any one thing can fail and how do you explain to the bride that you have no back up? So you are buying two 20D's?

The first lens I would think of is the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5. That gives me that 35-105 coverage more or less, and I could shoot an entire wedding with that one lens. But I need a backup in case it breaks down for some reason. I question weather the kit lens is going to function long with professional use, but since the lens is so new it hasn't be around long enough to be sure.

Do you have a bracket to keep the flash above the lens when you are shooting vertically? Nothing says amateur louder than showing side shadows on the wall. Then you'll need the off camera cord - actually two of them - for redundency.

Maybe you've shot a lot of weddings and have all of this under control and if you do I apologize. But in the 1980's Uncle George bought a Canon AE1 on Tuesday and was looking to make it pay for itself by shooting a wedding on Saturday. That same guy moved on to video cameras and video weddings in thr 90's. Now it seems to be heading back to Uncle George and his new digital camera.

The people that pay for the upcoming disasters are the pro's who are standing around after the debacle. I'm not talking about losing business and being jealous; I'm talking about having to fight through the disgust that an unprepared "pro" leaves behind.

To shoot a wedding you need redundency in all major pieces of equipment. You need complete and utter control and confidence in your gear. I bought a 10D in March 2003 and finally shot a friend's wedding with it a year later, and that was based on my feeling that the camera was controlling me and not the other way around. And I've shot over 150 weddings!

This wedding season - 30 months after I got my first digital camera - will be the first time that I feel confident enough and have redundency enough to shoot digital weddings.

[pierrot]

Ahem... I must be a bit stupid but i'm wandering : do you have so many friends that there are a couple or two marrying every week end, or do you make a living of shooting weddings all over the neighbourhood? :mrgreen:

[lisa.ireland]

thanks to the people that gave me some real suggestions. i do have a back-up film camera (Nikon, but I'll probably sell it and get a Canon) and lenses, flash, etc. i do have a degree in the arts and am not heading into a wedding photography career blindly. i do plan on getting to know the 20D and what i can expect from it before i start to market myself as a wedding photographer.

i'd like to do most of my work without a tripod so i wouldn't mind spend extra money on the L and IS lenses. I make euro and can get a good deal in the US on lenses when i go there because of the favorable exchange rates. i will use a tripod for the group shots most likely.

i'm only planning to use the kit lens for practise before i invest in the more expensive lenses. is the kit with the 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS lens worth the extra 400euro for practise or should i just get the cheaper 18-55 kit lens and buy the more expensive lenses later? 17-40L, 28-135 IS, or 24-70 L?

[RJSorensen]

I had the 18-55 and just traded up for the 17-85. I have found the build quality to be quite a bit better and I think the 'glass' is as well. It has IS but I am unsure of its use at this time. A quicker lens is always better than IS, I think. However, I am quite pleased with the 'upgraded' kit lens at this time. I think it to be a near 'perfect' general purpose lens that has value beyond the regular 'kit' lens. Best of luck to you btw . . .

[Karp]

Like said above, do not forget the Canon 50mm 1.8 prime lense, its cheap and wedding photography must!