| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/02/2006 08:14:02 AM · #1 |
Ok. Don't want to lug two lenses around for 4-6 hours. Have read a lot of postings on Sigma 18-125, 18-200 and Tamron 18-200. Am serously considering the Canon 28-105 F3.5-4.5. But which is the optimal lens for my wedding photography? Currently have Canon 18-55 and Sigma 55-500. The Canon is not good and the Sigma is a case of hit and miss with focusing.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 08:25:20 AM · #2 |
| Have you got a decent flash unit ? |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 08:29:30 AM · #3 |
In my small experience with weddings I would say it is not possible to shoot a wedding with just 1 lens and I would take with me the fastest glass I could get my set up for a typical wedding would be.
SB-800 flash unit
17-55mm f2.8
50mm f1.8
70-200 f2.8
2 bodies
Maybe someone else can offer something a bit more positive but I think that trying to shoot a wedding with the HUGE sigma 50-500 would be a nightmare looking at what you got I'de take the Canon 28-105 but really you should consider renting or buying faster glass for weddings IMO.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 09:32:35 AM · #4 |
Yes, you can shoot with one lens, i've done that (sigma 18-50 2.8) once.
Do you just want to shoot the wedding for the memories, or do you want to be good, sell the images, make a living at this?
If you are doing this as a money making proposition, what's your point of view? make a quick $500 a few times a year and try not to screw anything up, or do you have grander plans of making this a full time well paying career?
If you want to be the soccer mom of weddings, then sure, you might make do with a 24-105 4L with IS. It's a lot better than that 50-500 for focus and such, but will never be as good as a 2.8 lens - canon's bodies turn on extra focusing sensors with 2.8 lenses.
I attended a seminar taught by Michele Celentano (google her) and she is one of the top PJ wedding photogs out there. She did not get that way just because she has a good eye - her gear has helped her get there (and she'll tell you that too). You want to rise above soccer-mom status you need equipment they won't get - it'll give you images they can't get with their one lens approach.
Michele uses EVERY lens at EVERY wedding...her kit is all canon L of course, and some of the lenses are no longer made, but you get the idea:
17-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 85 1.2, 50 1.0, 200 1.8, 35-350 (for outdoors), 100-400, 15 fisheye.
Her favorites are the 85 and 35-350 and she rarely uses the 24-70 except for group shots.
I've been using a sigma 18-50 2.8 on one body and a 70-210 2.8 on the other. For next year i've got a 10-22 and 28-75 (for receptions). I'd like to get a fisheye too.
I know a photog that uses a canon 28-200 for everything, and shoots everything at f5.6 and everything with flash. It works, but it's not what today's brides are wanting, seeing in magazines, etc. If you don't have the product they want, they'll buy elsewhere or buy on price alone.
To be a successful wedding photog in this day and age you need to have the gear and means spending the money and the energy to carry it around.
Raise your prices $100 and hire an assistant to carry stuff - I did hat at one wedding last year and in 07 I'll have an assistant at every wedding - i was less stressed, less tires, and shot better images -AND had somebody to talk to at dinner!
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 09:36:49 AM · #5 |
Last wedding I shot was done entirely with a 50mm 1.4
Depends a lot on your style and what the expectations on you are.
Tim & Kate's wedding
However, I wasn't paid, nor was I the only shooter.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 10:02:29 AM · #6 |
As you see from other comments, you really don't want to look like a photo "geek" with a large bag of goodies to drag around and then missing the special shot because you are changing lenses. Talk to the Bride and Groom, find out if they want you to stay "invisible" or if they really just want great photos and don't care where you go to get them. I have shot several weddings and Bridals with a single lens, my favorite is the Sigma 24-70 EX DG f2.8 macro. With it I can go from very closeup of rings or hands to shoot from the back of a modest size room or garden.
I think a photog who has his arms full of additional lenses and keeps changing them does not look professional and apears more like someone who wants to look important showing off his toys.
However I do recomend a backup camera with a different lens. What happens if you drop the main camera, or it just malfunctions as all mechanical things do sometimes? You just ruined a couples best memories, they cannot be re-enacted.
So my recommendation, two cameras with two different lenses. Or is you only have one camera (we will all be praying for it to work ;) ) the Canon 28-135 IS would be something I would consider from your list.
Best of luck ... remeber KISS
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 11:13:51 AM · #7 |
Really good replys.
I shoot events and have been asked to shoot weddings and have turned them down because I don't have the kind of gear I feel comfortable for a wedding. This coming from a guy who has shot several rock venues, multiple charity events, political fund raisers and is a freelancer for a few papers and magazines. Weddings scare me!
Gordon made an excellent point. Expectations.
Asking questions up front will help insure that whatever your equipment level and experience is..you can match that to the customer. Your most valuable asset is your relationship and reputation and that is why I don't shoot weddings.
I agree that I would get sick at the stomach if I was the main shooter at a wedding and I didnt have these basic items.
-2 Camera bodies...imagine the disaster if you have a problem with a camera body and you are the only/main shooter and you have been hired for money! I think this is the single most important thing to have in equipment. The one absolute, must have insurance policy. Don't spend a fortune. I have a D2x but I don't feel I need to have a second D2x. A simple Nikon D80 would save me. A second camera body also allows for an assistant (wife in my case) to have the second body and shoot freestyle.
By having a second body you have insurance AND you now can shoot with 2 lenses which leads me to my second must have.
-2 fast lenses...I have shot enough events to know that I cannot live without my 17-55mm 2.8 on my camera for one second. I know its fast enough, sharp enough and wide enough to catch just about anything. The second lens is up to you and your style. I like a 70-200mm 2.8 to get in tight for faces when you have to stand back and the bokeh created wide open on this lens is mind blowing. Other lenses that are real money makers...a good fisheye....a fast 50mm (at least 1.8 ap)
You just dont have time to switch lenses and risk missing a special moment and anything slower than 2.8 puts you in a bind when you go indoors.
I guess my point. You might be able to get away with a single lens like an 18-200 but it will be 1) slower than preferred 2) put you at risk of potential disaster with only one camera 3) really limit your creativity.
I just cant imagine anyone serious about wedding photography as a job (part time or full) would risk it.
Edit....My second body is a Nikon FA2 film camera that I have a 50mm 1.8 on. I rarely if ever use it BUT...I sleep better knowing I have it when I go and it requires no power..completely manual..so I could climb Mount Everest and feel secure I could shoot a photo :-D
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 11:23:22. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 08:57:12 PM EDT.
