Got a wedding to shoot ad All i have is an 18-55 lens? What should I get?

amonline wrote in post #2032313
$800 is not a substantial sum when the going rate was placed at $1500. At least, that's what I read... feel free to correct me if I read that wrong.

I suppose it depends on your perspective or background. $800 is substantial, IMHO, no matter what the going rate is.

amonline wrote in post #2032313
$800 is not a substantial sum when the going rate was placed at $1500. At least, that's what I read... feel free to correct me if I read that wrong.

Well I know the area well and the rate is $750-$3000 as I stated before with $1500 being about average. $800 for a 1st wedding and lacking needed equipment? You make the call.

Yea, $800 seems reasonable... it's 25% of the going range. Just because some can't afford to own $6,000 worth of lenses - it doesn't really prove that the OP can't do the job. Looking at her portraits on her site and taking the fee into consideration, I think she's offering a fair (maybe slightly high) offer. The client evidently knows her and her abilities. I would guess that the party agreed to the fee based on all of this.

Again, not to hijack this thread, but this just points out my point about helping and supporting people as they try new things.

I hope her stuff comes out killer and I hope to see it in the wedding forum.

amonline wrote in post #2032372
I hope her stuff comes out killer and I hope to see it in the wedding forum.

So do I.

amonline wrote in post #2032372
Yea, $800 seems reasonable... it's 25% of the going range. Just because some can't afford to own $6,000 worth of lenses - it doesn't really prove that the OP can't do the job. Looking at her portraits on her site and taking the fee into consideration, I think she's offering a fair (maybe slightly high) offer. The client evidently knows her and her abilities. I would guess that the party agreed to the fee based on all of this.

Again, not to hijack this thread, but this just points out my point about helping and supporting people as they try new things.

I hope her stuff comes out killer and I hope to see it in the wedding forum.

I don't think anyone is putting down the OP. Supporting and encouraging someone is one thing, but letting them lull themselves into a false sense of security and be set up for possible civil liability is quite another. I will continue to voice an honest opinion and try to convey accurate information. I will not, however, tell someone they can shoot a wedding adequately with the kit lens, no backup, and no flash. Because you can't. Trying new things as a hobby is one thing, but this is someone's wedding, for God's sake.

liza wrote in post #2032473
I don't think anyone is putting down the OP. Supporting and encouraging someone is one thing, but letting them lull themselves into a false sense of security and be set up for possible civil liability is quite another. I will continue to voice an honest opinion and try to convey accurate information. I will not, however, tell someone they can shoot a wedding adequately with the kit lens, no backup, and no flash. Because you can't. Trying new things as a hobby is one thing, but this is someone's wedding, for God's sake.

Well, OP does have a flash.

I re-read all of the posts, and I couldn't find any remarks that disparaged the OP's ability. All of the skepticism centered around the potential folly of accepting a job (as Liza said, "someone's wedding, for God's sake) without even the minimum equipment. Furthermore, I would imagine that there are many accomplished, technically adept photographers with many years of experience who would not accept such a contract merely because it is, often, a one-shot, no-second-chance deal. The father will only walk the bride down the aisle once, the rings will only be exchanged once, the groom will only lift the bride's veil once, the first slice of wedding cake will only be cut once, the bouquet will only be thrown once, the groom will only dance with the mother of the bride once. If the photographer's equipment and ability and experience are not up to the task, the moment is lost forever. A great landscape or portrait or urban or sports photographer does not, necessarily make a great wedding photographer.

runninmann wrote in post #2032503
If the photographer's equipment and ability and experience are not up to the task, the moment is lost forever. A great landscape or portrait or urban or sports photographer does not, necessarily make a great wedding photographer.

This is probably one of the best quotes I've ever seen on this forum.

liza wrote in post #2032473
I don't think anyone is putting down the OP. Supporting and encouraging someone is one thing, but letting them lull themselves into a false sense of security and be set up for possible civil liability is quite another. I will continue to voice an honest opinion and try to convey accurate information. I will not, however, tell someone they can shoot a wedding adequately with the kit lens, no backup, and no flash. Because you can't. Trying new things as a hobby is one thing, but this is someone's wedding, for God's sake.

I only do weddings for friends/family for free or print cost and I wouldn't even do that if I didn't have a backup plan for every piece of equipment from camera, lens, cf card, batteries and flash. I mean what do you do if during the ceremony one of these fail? Couples usually aren't thinking of this. It is expected for the photog to take care of it no matter what the skill or experience.

I do think in this case if the OP can rent the needed equipment then everything should be ok but would be best to assist a few weddings before charging on own (but that is up to OP) . The main thing is the op needs is faster glass to shoot indoors without flash during the ceremony. I don't think flash is cool during ceremony even if it is allowed. It's a no no.

Lunajen wrote in post #2030750
Ok, so all I got is the Rebel withthe kit lens and I have a Wedding coming up in November. Gonna ask for about $800, that way I can convince hubby to let me but a lens before hand and put some of that money to the lens cost.

So, what lens would you all get, and let's say $500-$600 is the the most I could spend.

I want the EF 70-300 USM IS f4.5-5.6 (because I have a nephew who is a football player and would like that lens for the sports shots as well). But I figured it would have the verasitility for low light pics as well in wedding shots. Granted I might not get as much of the DOF I want but I think it would be a good first buy. And I know it doesn't have the rear focusing, but still my first choice. P.S> I can get this lens for aobut $440...don't ask how....

What do you all think?

I've shot some outdoor weddings with the kit lens and fill flash, when my 24-105 was in the shop. If I were you, I would just use the kit lens and your primes, then save up for a 24-105L, which I consider the best wedding lens availible, if you are using a flash.

cactusclay wrote in post #2032553
I've shot some outdoor weddings with the kit lens and fill flash, when my 24-105 was in the shop. If I were you, I would just use the kit lens and your primes, then save up for a 24-105L, which I consider the best wedding lens availible, if you are using a flash.

I think the primes are FD mount and don't fit the rebel. Correct me if I'm wrong??

Yea, she needs a second camera ready to go at all times... I totally spaced on that.

While the 24-105 is an outstanding lens, (I use it daily) I wouldn't use it unless the environment was lighted extremely well. I agree with the 'flash no-no' mention up there. Receptions are fine, but not the ceremony itself... stick to 2.8L or lower. 4's not going to cut it if the environment is at all dark. The 24-70 & 70-200L are ideal for the ceremony.

Jen, you better show up early and get great exposure settings no matter what you use.

While that's a great quote, it's not truly known whether that's the case here.

amonline wrote in post #2032612
While that's a great quote, it's not truly known whether that's the case here.

If the photographer's equipment and ability and experience are not up to the task, the moment is lost forever. A great landscape or portrait or urban or sports photographer does not, necessarily make a great wedding photographer.

Which part isn't known? Thepart that says, "If the photographer's equipment and ability and experience are not up to the task, the moment is lost forever." Or the part that says, "A great landscape or portrait or urban or sports photographer does not, necessarily make a great wedding photographer. "

Based on the gear list and the OP's question, I think it's clear that her digital equipment is a bit lacking for the task. Based on the fact that she's asking for equipment recommendations, I imagine that she hasn't shot weddings before.

amonline wrote in post #2032235
Anything L at 2.8 or lower is going to be successful as long as you think you can use it well.

I'd agree with that, but I'd still recommend the Sigma 17-70mm in the same sentence. It opens up at f/2.8, and works really well.

I applaud anyone who can do wedding photography and be successful at it. I've only shot one wedding, and it was a success. I decided to keep my record perfect and give it up.

Good luck!