If I can only bring 2 lenses to a wedding, what should the second one be?

Long story short, my friends are doing a small wedding on a very slim budget. My original kit included a 50mm 1.4, a 70-300 4-5.6, and a 430 ex II (all rental from lensrentals.com) paired with my kit 18-55mm 3.5-5.6. I'm on quite a budget myself or I'd be looking in to purchasing said lenses and flash, but the family's budget decreased quite a bit. Now I'm stuck with my kit lens and one of the above options.

I was thinking mostly the 50mm 1.4 because it would make for great portraits for families and be a good light bucket I could supplement with my pop-up flash when it gets dark. Then I was torn thinking about the telephoto or a cheaper 55-250 to instead snipe some good candid shots and shots of the ceremony without getting in the way. The flash would be nice, but I think, given the circumstances, it would be better as an accessory to a piece of glass if the budget opens up a bit.

What would you guys do in this situation? Thanks in advance!

Paul

Lenses are generally $40ish to rent and flashes about $20. Your friends don't have $100 to budget for photography to ensure you're shooting with a minimal amount of equipment ? If you're getting paid to shoot the wedding shouldn't you have adequate equipment to do the job--even if that means renting ?

If you have the canon 50mm 1.8, use that. If not, rent the 50 1.4. Also rent a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 430ex or two.

I know, it does sound pretty bad. I wasn't expecting this at all and want to still try to help as much as I can, I don't want some people's bad planning to ruin it for everyone.

What a crappy position you're in. Perhaps you need to communicate this (what you have, what you need, what difference it will make) with the couple ? If they decide it's not worth investing in then in a sense you're off the hook as it seems they don't really care about the photography. Hopefully their expectations will be commensurate with what they are willing to invest.

xG33Kx wrote in post #17197489
I know, it does sound pretty bad. I wasn't expecting this at all and want to still try to help as much as I can, I don't want some people's bad planning to ruin it for everyone.

I've explained that covering basic rental is already pretty much charity for my time, personal equipment wear, post-processing, etc. If the groom's mom (who is most likely to complain and has already been pretty stingy on everything else. She threatened to not come to her own son's wedding and not pay for decorations because she "doesn't like" the wife's mom) gives me any grief, especially about purchasing prints, I'm going to tell her that $50 is laughable when she could easily spend four figures on a wedding package. I still even plan to help arrange for getting prints made (providing high-quality files, etc. so poor old grandma doesn't have to struggle at Walgreen's with what she downloaded from Facebook).

In my experience the smaller the budget the darker the venue.

You have a few different ways of looking at the rental situation, either you have no plans to ever get into weddings beyond a occasional gift of family/friend love. In which case get your self a shopping list of what you need and make them pay. Shooting time and editing becomes the gift.
At that point you might find yourself off the hook when they go with a cheap alternative.

Or this is the start of something bigger and then the rental cost becomes an investment.

My first paid gig I spent all the earnings on rental. Not a decision I regret.

You have a flash and a low light option.

Your kit and telephoto's will only be of any use if you are at an outdoor wedding.

Rent a 24-70 2.8, a 70-200 2.8 and a Macro lens. In the UK that would cost around £150. Still cheaper for your friends.

^Can you clarify what you mean by 'Kit and telephoto's will only be of any use if you are at an outdoor wedding.' ?

What are the wedding and reception venues? As much as we beat up kit lens wedding photographers the lens is good enough if you have or can create good light.

do you have a 50 1.8? I know a wedding photographer who shoots with that one 90% of the wedding, is he the best? no but he is doing well in the market he is in

That lens is so unbelievably maligned that I try to give it props whenever I can. I've shot more than 80 weddings with the same 50mm 1.8 and I'm doing just fine.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17197653
do you have a 50 1.8? I know a wedding photographer who shoots with that one 90% of the wedding, is he the best? no but he is doing well in the market he is in

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #17197656
That lens is so unbelievably maligned that I try to give it props whenever I can. I've shot more than 80 weddings with the same 50mm 1.8 and I'm doing just fine.

I have a 50 1.4 that suprises me sometimes with the quality. Better glass doesn't always = better images.

I can see doing one wedding with a nifty, but not as a part of a regular wedding kit. Partially because of the loud slow focus, but also its fragility.

It'll be pretty much all inside, a church in the afternoon and reception at night at a rented hall.

If thats the case the 70-300 will be nearly usesless. I would look into renting a 24-70 2.8.

I hear about fragility issues. But I've never seen it after taking 10's of thousands of photos with one. Carry a backup 50mm and the fragility is moot. As for speed--weddings aren't quite like sports. But I'd also argue that the speed of the AF probably isn't dramatically different from the 1.2 and 1.4 versions.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17197669
I can see doing one wedding with a nifty, but not as a part of a regular wedding kit. Partially because of the loud slow focus, but also its fragility.