Hoping to get into wedding photography next year...

Hi,

just after some advise please?

Hoping to get into wedding photography next year, I'm currently using a Fuji S7000 zoom, I'm looking to upgrade at the end of the year to a Canon 400D, I've noticed that a lot of shops offer the body on it's own or the body and a 18-55mm EF-s lens kit.

[1] Is it worth getting the 18-55mm EF-s lens or should I just get the body?

[2] What lenses would I need for for concentrating on wedding photography? I'm guessing I will need a couple of different lenses I'm hoping to get spend about £2-300 per lens, is this a realistic budget?

Thanks in advance

James

If you want to do it professional budget perhaps US$10K to get started. 17-55 F2.8 IS and 70-200 F2.8 IS, plus two bodies, 8-10GB of memory, two flashes (580s are best), maybe another wide lens, a fast prime. Of course you could shoot it all with the consumer 400D and a single prime and available light if you're good enough. Plenty of threads like this around here you can read, my wedding FAQ is still a few weeks off.

Thanks for the reply Tim, may i ask why you like the f2.8 lenses?

Because with F2.8 lenses you can often get away without a flash. It's easier for beginners to mess up flash than natural light.

The slowest lens I regularly use is F2.8, the fastest F1.4. I was just watching the "masters of wedding photography" DVD, one guy (I forget his name) said his slowest lens is F2.8, the fastest is the Leica F1.0 Noctilux. What an amazing thing that would be to use, and at US$4K it should be!

That sounds like a nice lens!

Your lenses are they fixed aperture or is 2.8 the maximum aperture??

All EF lenses have adjustable apertures AFAIK, definitely all mainstream Canon, Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma lenses are. Fixed aperture lenses are a thing of the past I think, except for specialties. I don't know much about photographic history though.

Thanks tim, you've been a real help

Of all the things I get called that's one of the nicer ones

I should really say that a good photographer with a 20D/400D/beat up old leica and a 30/50mm fast prime lens and no flash can take photos that will make your jaw drop. As a professional I think you owe it to your customers to have backup equipment, lighting equipment, and gear that's up to the task.

[QUOTE=tim;2021206]Of all the things I get called that's one of the nicer ones


he he....

kp

tim wrote in post #2021206
Of all the things I get called that's one of the nicer ones

tim wrote in post #2021206
I should really say that a good photographer with a 20D/400D/beat up old leica and a 30/50mm fast prime lens and no flash can take photos that will make your jaw drop. As a professional I think you owe it to your customers to have backup equipment, lighting equipment, and gear that's up to the task.

I agree.

tim wrote in post #2021206
Of all the things I get called that's one of the nicer ones

tim wrote in post #2021206
I should really say that a good photographer with a 20D/400D/beat up old leica and a 30/50mm fast prime lens and no flash can take photos that will make your jaw drop. As a professional I think you owe it to your customers to have backup equipment, lighting equipment, and gear that's up to the task.

Without a doubt!

I was shooting events with my 10D and 28-105 and 28-135 for over a year before feeling stuck. I decided I really needed to learn more and to find out what equipment was being used by other pros in order to have real income. I'd check with your competition and what others are using. You don't need the most expensive equipment, but you have to work on getting a budget of what you are willing to spend and what purchases, in what order, would be the best. I agree with Tim about the backup gear, as well. At least 2 bodies and 3 good lenses.

1. I don't think it would be worth getting the 18-55. Save the $100 and put it towards the 17-55 2.8 IS.

2. 2-300 per lens is not realistic. I love my 3 lens setup, it covers for me 99% of weddings. 17-55 2.8 IS, 70-200 2.8L IS, 10-22. The only other lenses I would use are fast primes in the case where the light is SOOOO poor you need every lumen you can get. I've only used my 50 1.4 once this year.

jameslcross wrote in post #2021005
Thanks for the reply Tim, may i ask why you like the f2.8 lenses?

I don't know what Tim's response is or was but, back in the day when I was using large format 8x10 cameras, when purchasing lens, we bought the lens with the largest f-stop because it was brighter, and normally of higher quaility. It had nothing to do with SDOF.

I never really looked at slr lens of the same focal lenght to see if the larger f-stop lens is brighter, but I would tend to say by it's construction it should be. I also think helps with auto focus in lower light, which is one reason why my lens are F2.8. Typically most lens of a zoom type are not always sharp at thier widest opening so I don't try to shoot wide open. If I need to I can alway make adjustments in Photoshot if needed.

I shot a wedding today with the 17-55, 70-200, and 50 1.4. I didn't use the 12-24, the 28-75, the 100mm macro, and I suspect I have another hanging around I didn't use. 17-55 IS/70-200 IS/30mm f1.4 prime would be my ideal setup.