Zoom lens question for weddings

<p>hello everyone,<br>

I am new to the intricacies of photography but it has always been my passion. I decided I wanted to break into wedding photography but I have a lot of work to do.<br>

I am on a limited budget and want to buy a new 70-200mm . A few people have told me that I need to buy an expensive lens to use for wedding photography. How much does the quality differ from a 3 -5 hundred dollar lens vs. a 3 - 5 thousand dollar lens?<br>

I always thought I could still make great images regardless. Is this not the case?</p>

<p>In broad terms:<br /><br />The more expensive lens is usually much more rugged, which means it's more likely to continue to actually be working for you after regular professional use out in the world. Since you'll almost always have two camera bodies in use at a wedding, you don't want a fragile lens knocking into things. Likewise with weather sealing. Pro grade lenses will generally handle exposure to dirt and dampness better than a consumer product.<br /><br />The next thing that usually differentiates the $400 lens from the $1700 lens: speed. With something like a 70-200, you want a consistent f/2.8 no matter what focal length you're using. This way your strobe lighting won't have to be re-thought as you zoom in and out. You'll also want that wider aperture so that you can work in the inevitable low light that confronts a wedding shoot, and so that you can make use of shallow depth of field to better separate your subjects from a busy, cluttered background. <br /><br /><em>I always thought I could still make great images regardless.<br /></em><br />If the lens's autofocus stops working at the event after you've bumped it into the caterer's desert cart, the great images will be harder to come by. If you are in a venue where you're not allowed to use a flash, the cheaper, slower zoom lens may leave you having to use a very high ISO in order to get a tolerable shutter speed, and thus more noise in the image.<br /><br />But before you dwell too much on a 70-200... what other lens(es) do you have? Which two cameras will you be using? You'll get better info if folks have the bigger picture, here.</p>

<p>There are a wide variety of reasons to purchase the expensive lenses and stay away from the cheap lenses - especially for wedding photography.</p>

<p>First, you (generic "you", not you personally!) need to realize the difference between things like landscape photography and wedding photography. Wedding photography is fast-paced and you need to be constantly looking around you and ready to take the shot as it appears. That requires really fast glass - a two stop difference in aperture <em>is</em> the difference between getting the shot and missing it altogether.</p>

<p>The quality of the glass used is a big difference, too. Cheap lenses are more prone to things like vignetting and barrel distortion.</p>

<p>There isn't a wedding photographer alive who would not love to keep more of their fees in their pocket by buying cheap gear. But there is a reason we have "the good stuff". It's not bragging rights, it's not because we're so bloody rich (we're not). It's because we need to know that we can quickly throw the camera up to our face and get the shot in any kind of light.</p>

<p>Beyond the quality of your equipment needing to be the highest possible, here is a list of items that new wedding shooters invariable forget about, don't know about, or outright think is pointless:</p>

<ul>

<li>A backup camera body. Your camera is a mechanical device; it will fail. Murphy's law (and experience) dictates that it will break during a wedding.</li>

<li>Insurance. Many, if not most, reception venues require the photographer to carry insurance and provide proof of it.</li>

<li>A flash head/speedlight. The $50 version off of Ebay won't cut it, either. Expect to spend at least a few hundred on that, too.</li>

<li>At least two spare batteries for your camera. One will fail at some point, leaving you with only one extra.</li>

<li>Tripod - a real one. Not one of those $75 pieces of <em>[a word I'm not allowed to use in the post but no other word accurately describes the lack of quality]</em> .</li>

</ul>

<p>I know a lot of people want to shoot weddings because it seems like easy money. In fact, it's not easy money, but it is readily available money and therein lies one of the biggest risks: no other genre of photography exposes you to such a high risk of being sued (successfully) if you screw up.</p>

<p>If you want to get into wedding photography, find an experienced and respected wedding photographer in your area and offer to be a second shooter for a season. You might get paid, you might not, but be prepared to accept the experience, guidance, and portfolio pictures as compensation.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>I'll just give a short ditto to the guys above and re-emphasize the amount of WORK a wedding is. Apparently, (I) you run on more adrenaline than you will ever realize. Yes, we are having fun, and a lot of it, but when it's over, you will most likely be used up, and knowing it.</p>

<p>And something that wasn't specifically mentioned about the difference in lenses - SHARPNESS. Most important is that extra f-stop or three, but the difference in the clarity of your photos will astound you. It's the difference between seeing eyelashes, and seeing each individual eyelash as an individual hair w/ an individual tip when you look very very closely.</p>

<p>The 70-200 2.8L IS is almost a must to me. You could also look into the 135 2L as well... but to be honest it'd be a secondary lens to me. You're going to be wanting to buy L glass and at least a 50D or a 5DMark2 if you can afford it, anything less and you'll just be the friend with the camera making $500 a wedding. Not something worth doing as a career at that kind of pay. I suggest second shooting and seeing if it's worth your while. If you're not willing to invest in around $15k in computers, programs, and lenses/bodies in your first year and a good 5k a year after that, well, I would suggest just keeping it as a hobby. It's an expensive career and not for the faint hearted. </p>

<p>Check out Fast Track Photographer by Dane Sanders, a great read for anyone, but especially for those considering a new career in photography.</p>

<p>thanks for all your help. As I said before I am new to (professional) photography and will be "testing the waters" over the next year. The plan is to jump in next wedding season. Based on what everyone has said I do plan on purchasing the more expansive/better quality lens. </p>

<p>Good - you will never go wrong spending money on lenses. Well, there are some very expensive lenses out there with not much in the way of practical application to wedding photography <grin>.</p>

<p>But, please, for your own sake and that of your clients, consider finding someone to assist a few times this year as well.</p>

<p>I can't emphasize enough the experience that that will provide you.</p>

<p>Thena:</p>

<p>Don't jump in and overspend just yet. Occasionally I refelct on the money I've wasted and thing's I've overbought or under bought for my photography.</p>

<p>( in Canon speak because that's what I shoot)</p>

<p>You can't generalize like that, a $300-$500 lens vs a $3k-$5 lens. There are so many factors. For instance the $550 70-200 F4 lens has image quality on par with any lens at any price. This might be a good starting point for you. Now it's sibling lenses cost more because they are faster aperture or have Image Stabalization. But do you really need that when you're starting out? Having the F4 for weddings is not such a liability beacause you can always use flash. </p>

<p>Where you get into trouble is chosing lenses that try to do too much at a lower price point. Super zooms are usualy of low image quality for example.</p>

<p>When I think back on what I could have gotten away with, I'd recomend something like this.</p>

<p>Used 300D $300 x 2 you need backup.<br>

Used 550EX $200 x 2<br>

New 70-200 F4 $550<br>

New Sigma 17-50 F2.8 $500<br>

New 50 1.8 (plastic fantastic) $80</p>

<p>This kit would run you about $2K total, cover all your shooting needs and yield nice sharp images (providing you know how to use it).</p>

<p>Don't go nuts spending until you get things going.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Wedding photography is about a whole lot more than just the gear. Actually the equipment is the easiest part: <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment">http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment</a></p>

<p>Another thing you could try is rent the gear and do some portraits before you buy it. I feel that you don't need the highest end camera body but the lenses are where you need to make some careful decisions. When it comes down to it, even if you don't have all the gear you might want or see others using, if you know how to use what you have you will still get great pictures. Each wedding is a learning process. Just start with lots of formal portraits (family and friends) and shooting second at a wedding first.</p>

Alongside what David (Schilling) has mentioned, you also need to get to grips with the business side. A book I have found invaluable to this end is "The business of Studio Photography" by Edward Lilley, available here:

http://www.amazon.com/Business-Studio-Photography-Third/dp/1581156553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242972692&sr=1-1

<p>No point getting into photography for a living if one doesn't know how to run a business... :)

<p>I would try to find a job as a second shooter to learn and maybe make some money toward better gear. I would never recommend someone who does photography as a hobby to just "jump in" to your first wedding with no experience. You need to know where to be and when. The times where key images are will happen whether you are ready or not and in the right place or not. Don't try to make your career start by just taking one on. Your first wedding you shoot is a very special day for the bride and groom and they don't deserve a photographer on a "learning experience". If you worked for someone else then you would know if you like shooting weddings. </p>