If you were or are wedding photographer which would you choose?

[bakerbranded]

Hey everyone,
My goal right now in my photography is to get a job working with a wedding photographer as an assistant/second shooter. I really want to get into doing wedding photography.

Right now I do not think I have the proper equipment.
My current gear is a 20D w/ 70-200 f/4 L

I plan on getting a:
50mm 1.8
580 EX
& potentially a 17-55 f/2.8 IS (but don't count that one in yet)

With all that I think I could swing one of the three setups:

20D w/ 70-200 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/4 IS (if this setup please explain which lens and why)
30D w/ Sigma or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 (if this setup please explain which lens and why)
40D w/ 70-200 f/4 or 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS (if this setup please explain which lens and why)**Or if you can think of any other possibilities or ones that could save me money like something I really would not need that would be good, but please members of POTN try not to exceed $1400 for body and lens (it can be used as well)

Thanks,
Scott

[Tumeg]

I say... AT LEAST sell the 70-200 f/4, buy a 70-200 f/4 IS, and use the extra money to buy a used 40D or 30D, and of course buy the 580EX II and 50 1.8 (I suggest the 1.4, but the 1.8 is fine for starting out)

[ChadAndreo]

20D with 70-200 2.8(IS if possible) and the nifty. Your going to need the 2.8 and 1.8 for those wedding situations where flashes are not allowed.

[tim]

I'm a pro wedding photog, and I hire assistants from time to time. Don't bother with any 70-200 less than the 70-200 F2.8 IS. If you can't afford it don't buy any - you're just wasting money as you'll upgrade eventually. Dark churches need 2.8 and IS. If you can't afford it buy a fast long prime. I often give a 2nd shooter a 100mm F2.8 macro, which works well.

40d is a much better camera than the 20D/30D, much sharper in my experience. I've owned them all, and I have two 40Ds right now.

If I hire someone to work for me I mostly expect to provide equipment. If they have something, great, if not no bother. I would prefer that you turn up with a 70-200 F2.8 IS and no camera than with a 40D and a cheap or slow zoom.

[gravy graffix]

get a tammy 17-50 2.8 and a 85 1.8 prime...

i shot a whole wedding with a 50 1.4 and a 85 1.8... i think i put the wide on 1 or 2 times, but the other photog was shooting wide so i didnt bother.

if you got all 3 that would be like 950, that leaves room for a 580.
do 1 or 2 and use that to trade up to a 40d, nothing wrong with a 20d.

[BlackJagger]

I think that you need to get some form of a fast standard zoom. A 70-200 is pretty key, but your bread and butter lens will be the standard range, especially with a crop body. A 24-70 2.8 or 17-55 2.8 IS if you never plan on going FF would do really well. Maybe you shoot differently then I do but, rarely other then in the church do I bring out the 70-20. I find 70mm on my 28-70 long enough for most indoor, portrait, and group shots.

Cheers
Josh

[adam8080]

20D with 70-200 2.8!

You might also want to look at the 80-200L.

[Tixeon]

I'm a pro wedding photog, and I hire assistants from time to time. Don't bother with any 70-200 less than the 70-200 F2.8 IS. If you can't afford it don't buy any - you're just wasting money as you'll upgrade eventually. Dark churches need 2.8 and IS. If you can't afford it buy a fast long prime. I often give a 2nd shooter a 100mm F2.8 macro, which works well.

40d is a much better camera than the 20D/30D, much sharper in my experience. I've owned them all, and I have two 40Ds right now.

If I hire someone to work for me I mostly expect to provide equipment. If they have something, great, if not no bother. I would prefer that you turn up with a 70-200 F2.8 IS and no camera than with a 40D and a cheap or slow zoom.

Ditto that Tim, Especially the F/2.8 part.

[SQMazda6]

Go with the 20d and the 70-200 2.8 or just a few fast primes like a 85 1.8 and 50 1.4 and def get a Flash with some power .

I think that covers it

[_aravena]

20D with 70-200 2.8(IS if possible) and the nifty. Your going to need the 2.8 and 1.8 for those wedding situations where flashes are not allowed.

That's a big agreement there. I'd say if you candefinitely go ahead and get the 2.8 IS. Either way get the F2.8 over the F4. Body wise my 20D still proves itself time and time again so concentrate on the glass you want then follow up with whatever body you van get with the money left over. Maybe you'll only need to a dd a bit for a certain body.

580 is not a must, my 430 has done the job just fine.

[Familiaphoto]

Not a pro wedding shooter, but shoot a lot in churches. Get the 70-200 f/2.8 with IS. Can't be beat.

As for a body the 20D is a great place to start.

[bakerbranded]

I say... AT LEAST sell the 70-200 f/4, buy a 70-200 f/4 IS, and use the extra money to buy a used 40D or 30D, and of course buy the 580EX II and 50 1.8 (I suggest the 1.4, but the 1.8 is fine for starting out)

So you suggest the f/4 IS over the 2.8?
I will be getting the 50 f1.8 and I see that you use the 430ex, how has that been for you?

20D with 70-200 2.8(IS if possible) and the nifty. Your going to need the 2.8 and 1.8 for those wedding situations where flashes are not allowed.

So the 2.8 is better then the f/4 IS, even though you can get lower shutter speeds that could bring in more light with that one?

I'm a pro wedding photog, and I hire assistants from time to time. Don't bother with any 70-200 less than the 70-200 F2.8 IS. If you can't afford it don't buy any - you're just wasting money as you'll upgrade eventually. Dark churches need 2.8 and IS. If you can't afford it buy a fast long prime. I often give a 2nd shooter a 100mm F2.8 macro, which works well.

40d is a much better camera than the 20D/30D, much sharper in my experience. I've owned them all, and I have two 40Ds right now.

If I hire someone to work for me I mostly expect to provide equipment. If they have something, great, if not no bother. I would prefer that you turn up with a 70-200 F2.8 IS and no camera than with a 40D and a cheap or slow zoom.

I respect you very much Tim as a photographer, I just really dont have the money for the IS version, I wish very much I did.
This lens will also be used as my general lens so I dont know if I would want a prime as my main lens.
The f/2.8 or F4 IS for now in your opinion is completely useless?

Thanks for the responce.

get a tammy 17-50 2.8 and a 85 1.8 prime...

i shot a whole wedding with a 50 1.4 and a 85 1.8... i think i put the wide on 1 or 2 times, but the other photog was shooting wide so i didnt bother.

if you got all 3 that would be like 950, that leaves room for a 580.
do 1 or 2 and use that to trade up to a 40d, nothing wrong with a 20d.

Thanks I was thinking about the tammy over the 17-55 IS but think I would really want the IS.

I think that you need to get some form of a fast standard zoom. A 70-200 is pretty key, but your bread and butter lens will be the standard range, especially with a crop body. A 24-70 2.8 or 17-55 2.8 IS if you never plan on going FF would do really well. Maybe you shoot differently then I do but, rarely other then in the church do I bring out the 70-20. I find 70mm on my 28-70 long enough for most indoor, portrait, and group shots.

Cheers
Josh

Thanks Josh, but I already know I'm getting one either the 24-70 or 17-55 thats not the issue. I want a longer lens as well, so which one out of the suggested would you choose to have?

20D with 70-200 2.8!

You might also want to look at the 80-200L.

Thanks and I'll look at the 80-200 L as well!

Ditto that Tim, Especially the F/2.8 part.

But your saying though I can get away without the IS?

Go with the 20d and the 70-200 2.8 or just a few fast primes like a 85 1.8 and 50 1.4 and def get a Flash with some power .

I think that covers it

Thanks! Would a 430ex be not enough?

That's a big agreement there. I'd say if you candefinitely go ahead and get the 2.8 IS. Either way get the F2.8 over the F4. Body wise my 20D still proves itself time and time again so concentrate on the glass you want then follow up with whatever body you van get with the money left over. Maybe you'll only need to a dd a bit for a certain body.

580 is not a must, my 430 has done the job just fine.

Thanks so you would take the 2.8 over the f/4 IS?
And you say the 430ex is ok? It will have enough power?

Not a pro wedding shooter, but shoot a lot in churches. Get the 70-200 f/2.8 with IS. Can't be beat.

As for a body the 20D is a great place to start.

I really dont have have $1000 extra for the lens, my only next $1000 to a lens will be for my wide angle lens.
So f/2.8 or f/4 IS?

Thanks

[stathunter]

I am a wedding shooter. I would not get anything slower than a 2.8 -------- you want a low light setup that will nail the focus.
The f/4 is only a good lens if you are shooting outdoor weddings in the daylight. It will not work for weddings inside. The 70-200 2.8 IS is the standard for weddings. In the past week I shot two weddings with it--- and several media events (political) - and used it for 1/2 of a cage fight. It is a performer that will not let you down.

[bakerbranded]

I am a wedding shooter. I would not get anything slower than a 2.8 -------- you want a low light setup that will nail the focus.
The f/4 is only a good lens if you are shooting outdoor weddings in the daylight. It will not work for weddings inside. The 70-200 2.8 IS is the standard for weddings. In the past week I shot two weddings with it--- and several media events (political) - and used it for 1/2 of a cage fight. It is a performer that will not let you down.

Its a performer that is to much money right now :cry:
Would the 2.8 non IS be ok?

[tim]

Like I said don't waste your money on the non-IS version. In a dark church you'll need a tripod or IS, and tripods are a pain in the butt - I use mine as a light stand, but I haven't used it as a tripod at weddings in years.

Also you have to keep in mind what a 2nd shooter typically shoots. I know I have them shoot the ceremony from a different angle, usually with a longer lens, same with the reception but long or short lens varies. During the day they're mostly an assistant, if I want them to take photos it'll be with a standard lens, and same for candids at the reception.

I suggest you don't buy anything until you get a 2nd shooter gig, then get what the person you work for recommends. I also suggest you're careful whose advice you follow, there's a lot of opinions on this thread, but how many actually have wedding experience?

[Tixeon]

Hey Tim; I have Wedding experience....... Over 1100 :)

[adam8080]

Hey Tim; I have Wedding experience....... Over 1100 :)

Geez! How long have you been shooting weddings? I'm no where close to that!

[Tixeon]

Geez! How long have you been shooting weddings? I'm no where close to that!

My first wedding was in 1963 & I retired the end of 2004. I've seen a lot of change in that time but I think digital was the biggest.

[tim]

See, Tixeon has ten times more experience than me and still agrees with me! :)

[jongobongo]

I'd also lean you towards the 70-200 L 2.8 IS

If that lens is currently outside of your budget, maybe you should consider renting it on an as-needed basis.

[bakerbranded]

My first wedding was in 1963 & I retired the end of 2004. I've seen a lot of change in that time but I think digital was the biggest.
Would it be possible to shoot a wedding with a 70-200 f/2.8 (non IS)
I'm only 16 so I would be pushing it with the IS to far.
The only reason why I dont want my main lens to be a prime (were I spend most my money) is because it will be also my general lens. I want it to be good also so I want versatility.

[stathunter]

If you can't afford to purchase --- then rent one for your wedding(s). I have two 70-200 2.8 IS -- for wedding work and had one in service-- and needed two for a weekend of weddings and second shooters-- I rented without hesitation.

EDIT- yes it would be possible to shoot a wedding without IS ----

[DigitalSpecialist]

I would hope they have matching equipment to mine, but just in case they don't, I have a second body!

[bakerbranded]

If you can't afford to purchase --- then rent one for your wedding(s). I have two 70-200 2.8 IS -- for wedding work and had one in service-- and needed two for a weekend of weddings and second shooters-- I rented without hesitation.

EDIT- yes it would be possible to shoot a wedding without IS ----
2.8 plus flash, would that be able to also help when flash is available.

[tim]

In dark churches, with the 70-200 F2.8 non-IS, you will need a tripod. Personally that doesn't suit what I want a 2nd shooter to do, so i'd probably have them use one of my lenses.

You seem set on buying what you have in mind, why are you bothering to ask advice? As soon as you find someone who seems to know what they're talking about who agrees with you you're just going to buy what you had in mind in the first place. I still think you should hold off buying any equipment for now.

[bakerbranded]

In dark churches, with the 70-200 F2.8 non-IS, you will need a tripod. Personally that doesn't suit what I want a 2nd shooter to do, so i'd probably have them use one of my lenses.

You seem set on buying what you have in mind, why are you bothering to ask advice? As soon as you find someone who seems to know what they're talking about who agrees with you you're just going to buy what you had in mind in the first place. I still think you should hold off buying any equipment for now.

Thank you for your insight.
So most photographers though will will have lenses for you to use.
The reason why I have been so set on the non Is is because I dont have the money right now for any lens but will be saving, and I will also be saving for either the 17-55 IS or the 24-70 L (around $1000).

for being a wedding professional (lets say you were on a budget of around $2000) what combo would you find more useful all around to you:

70-200 f/2.8 IS w/ Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 & 50 1.8
-or-
17-55 f/2.8 IS w/ 70-200 f/2.8 and 50 1.8

and both with a flash?

[tim]

I only buy IS lenses, so 17-55 F2.8 IS and 70-200 F2.8 IS are my main combo. I have two 17-55 F2.8 lenses, one's backup or for the assistant to use. If I needed another i'd buy another - as a professional you have to have sufficient equipment and backups.

If you can only afford one lens get the 17-55 F2.8 IS, and keep the 20D. Next i'd add a 430EX flash. Then i'd probably get the 70-200 F2.8 IS, then a 50D.

[Tixeon]

Would it be possible to shoot a wedding with a 70-200 f/2.8 (non IS)
I'm only 16 so I would be pushing it with the IS to far.
The only reason why I dont want my main lens to be a prime (were I spend most my money) is because it will be also my general lens. I want it to be good also so I want versatility.

Now, everyone, keep in mind that I'm "Old School" & what I suggest may not work for everyone - or anyone but me. I spent most of my wedding career using Hasselblad bodies with the standard (normal FL) 80mm F/2.8 lens. These lenses were primes without IS. I (we) learned to hand hold the cameras still for a 1/10 or 1/15 sec ceremony exposure that would enlarge to at least 20x24. Just think firearms training - breathe deep, exhale, relax, stop heart, squeeze shutter button gently :).

You can do weddings nicely with the normal FL lens - just use the leg zoom. With a DSLR I personally would like a lens somewhere in the 24-200mm zoom range though & IS would be a major bonus since I can't hold as steady anymore. You're only 16 so you should be rock solid steady. I also think that the 70mm short end of a zoom would make doing large groups in the church more difficult.

Just my thoughts on the subject - hope some of it helps.

[Tixeon]

Good advice from Tim above in post #27. Those combos would carry you a long way.

[bakerbranded]

I only buy IS lenses, so 17-55 F2.8 IS and 70-200 F2.8 IS are my main combo. I have two 17-55 F2.8 lenses, one's backup or for the assistant to use. If I needed another i'd buy another - as a professional you have to have sufficient equipment and backups.

If you can only afford one lens get the 17-55 F2.8 IS, and keep the 20D. Next i'd add a 430EX flash. Then i'd probably get the 70-200 F2.8 IS, then a 50D.

I would love love love to have that combo but that is not in the cards currently. Unless you would want to sell me one of yours 17-55's for $500-600 USD *hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge*, ha.

That is what I thought as well, that the 17-55 IS may be the most useful at the moment. Yuo would recommend the 430EX? So many people tell me it is not powerful enough, but I would love to get that one if its worth it as it is cheaper.

[bakerbranded]

Now, everyone, keep in mind that I'm "Old School" & what I suggest may not work for everyone - or anyone but me. I spent most of my wedding career using Hasselblad bodies with the standard (normal FL) 80mm F/2.8 lens. These lenses were primes without IS. I (we) learned to hand hold the cameras still for a 1/10 or 1/15 sec ceremony exposure that would enlarge to at least 20x24. Just think firearms training - breathe deep, exhale, relax, stop heart, squeeze shutter button gently :).

You can do weddings nicely with the normal FL lens - just use the leg zoom. With a DSLR I personally would like a lens somewhere in the 24-200mm zoom range though & IS would be a major bonus since I can't hold as steady anymore. You're only 16 so you should be rock solid steady. I also think that the 70mm short end of a zoom would make doing large groups in the church more difficult.

Just my thoughts on the subject - hope some of it helps.

I have been hearing about those old fashioned techniques.
Thanks for reinforcing them in my brain. I will really have to remember my breathing!

[tim]

I would love love love to have that combo but that is not in the cards currently. Unless you would want to sell me one of yours 17-55's for $500-600 USD *hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge*, ha.

That is what I thought as well, that the 17-55 IS may be the most useful at the moment. Yuo would recommend the 430EX? So many people tell me it is not powerful enough, but I would love to get that one if its worth it as it is cheaper.

Save up until you can afford good equipment, don't buy cheap stuff as you'll just sell it and lose money in the process. I actually have three 17-55 lenses, but one was dropped, Canon told me it was "uneconomic to repair". Insurance bought me a new one. The old one's up in the cupboard somewhere, i'll rip it to bits one day for a laugh, and to see how they work.

The 430EX is one stop less powerful than a 580EX, whoever said it wasn't suitable doesn't know their ass from their elbow. I rarely shoot a speedlite on full power, but when I do a battery pack works great - but they only go into a 550/580.

[bakerbranded]

Save up until you can afford good equipment, don't buy cheap stuff as you'll just sell it and lose money in the process. I actually have three 17-55 lenses, but one was dropped, Canon told me it was "uneconomic to repair". Insurance bought me a new one. The old one's up in the cupboard somewhere, i'll rip it to bits one day for a laugh, and to see how they work.

The 430EX is one stop less powerful than a 580EX, whoever said it wasn't suitable doesn't know their ass from their elbow. I rarely shoot a speedlite on full power, but when I do a battery pack works great - but they only go into a 550/580.

Ha thanks for the laugh Tim. :lol:
I think this may be what I do, save and buy the 17-55 IS, then when I save another $1000, sell the f/4 and purchase a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and then by that time a new body may be due.

I think I will purchase the 430EX because I do value your advice very much as a prominent wedding photographer.

[_aravena]

Yeah, the only time I push the 430EX was at my last wedding in which, man o man it was dark.

[tim]

as a prominent wedding photographer.

Unfortunately that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me today! :p

Yeah, the only time I push the 430EX was at my last wedding in which, man o man it was dark.

When it's dark I tend to use less flash, if i'm only using one flash. I want my background to be reasonably bright, maybe one stop under the exposure for the main subject, so I need only a little flash power to bring up the main subject.

More usually though i'll use three flashes triggered by radio slaves and light up the whole place.

[_aravena]

Here's how it turned out. RAW is a great thing

http://www.lastshotphotography.com/img/v3/p123259130-4.jpg

[bakerbranded]

Unfortunately that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me today! :p



When it's dark I tend to use less flash, if i'm only using one flash. I want my background to be reasonably bright, maybe one stop under the exposure for the main subject, so I need only a little flash power to bring up the main subject.

More usually though i'll use three flashes triggered by radio slaves and light up the whole place.

Glad to hear!
And thanks for the tip on flash as well!

[tim]

Churches are tough, but i've never had to use a flash. I'd be shooting ISO3200 F2.0 1/50th before I used a flash in a church. As you can see direct flash causes side shadow, when used without a bracket, and the background appears dark.

[Tixeon]

Bakerbranded; I have a 430EX mounted on a 5D & 28-75mm F/2.8 Tamron lens. I still do some large groups in churches and ISO 200-400 is more than sufficient. The results also depends a lot on your style & technique, such as how much ambient light you wish to show in the photo.

[bakerbranded]

Bakerbranded; I have a 430EX mounted on a 5D & 28-75mm F/2.8 Tamron lens. I still do some large groups in churches and ISO 200-400 is more than sufficient. The results also depends a lot on your style & technique, such as how much ambient light you wish to show in the photo.

Thanks, everyone was saying to buy the 580 to just spend the extra $150 to $200 but if both you and Tim say I can get away with the 430ex then heck I will. I would rather have that money go towards a one light studio set for me to start out on. Thanks!

[tim]

Just remember you can't use a CP-E4 battery pack with a 430EX, they're invaluable when you're shooting quickly or outside when it's really bright.

[bakerbranded]

Just remember you can't use a CP-E4 battery pack with a 430EX, they're invaluable when you're shooting quickly or outside when it's really bright.

That would be invaluable but for now I think I will be ok.
Once I begin doing weddings on my own then would be a different story but that wont be for a long time most likely.

[OdiN1701]

My wedding lens combo:

Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 IS
Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L IS

[bakerbranded]

My wedding lens combo:

Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 IS
Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L IS

I wish I could afford both of those right now.
I just need $2000 more :(

[PhotosGuy]

Also you have to keep in mind what a 2nd shooter typically shoots. I know I have them shoot the ceremony from a different angle, usually with a longer lens, same with the reception but long or short lens varies. So, what about the 85mm f/1.8?

[cory1848]

There was previous mention of the Tamron 17-50 2.8. I have this lens and its great, I shot 3 wedding with it and got great results. I did use flash as well though. You can find these for around $400 new (bestbuy) and stopped down is super sharp. Just another suggestion for you.

[airfrogusmc]

For me 5D and fast sharp primes. I shot with Hasselblad for years so I got used to shooting without zooms so I don't miss shots because I don't have them. In fact I would say I get shots because of the fast low light capabilities I have.

[Tixeon]

For me 5D and fast sharp primes. I shot with Hasselblad for years so I got used to shooting without zooms so I don't miss shots because I don't have them. In fact I would say I get shots because of the fast low light capabilities I have.

Same here..... I don't use the Hasselblads any more but I occasionally miss them. The 5D is one amazing camera & the viewfinder works great with my vision. That's one of the things I miss about the Hasselblads - A large, bright, life size viewfinder image.

[airfrogusmc]

Yeah I wish i would have kept just one of the 500C/Ms and a 50mm FLE CF lens. :cry: