best lens for under $700-advice needed!

[botchow_c]

Hi!

 

im shooting my first wedding for a friend in september. Its going to be in

orange county, outside in a garden.

 

I am not a proffesional wedding photographer yet. I just have big ambitions to be!

 

I have a canon eos rebel xti and only the lens that came with it- 18-55

im going to invest in another lens for the wedding. And my question, which one

would be the best choice? I've tried to read some other postings, but its all

very confusing!

 

See, i dont know what a "prime lens" means?

I have a very limited budget, rather not spend more than $700. So the one 70-200

f 2.8 that many recomends in here for almost 1,700 bucks its not an option right

now.

 

For example, is there a big difference for me to get the canon 85/1.8? what does

the 85 stand for? And the 28/1.8? Its more expensive, but it has a lower number.

 

oh, im so confused!!

[pete_s.]

Hi Johanna,

 

Try to get a book on basic photography. That will make life much easier for you.

 

A prime lens is a fixed focal length lens, meaning you can't zoom. The focal length determines how much of the scene the camera will see.

 

The canon 85/1.8 is a prime with a focal length of 85mm and a maximum aperture of f/1.8. The 28/1.8 also a prime lens but with a focal of 28mm and the same maximum aperture f/1.8.

 

Given the nature of your questions I suggest learning a little more about photography before trying to do a wedding which by many is considered a very stressful and difficult job for a photographer.

 

Good luck,

 

Peter

[evan_goulet]

I would recommend spending the first $25 of your budget on a book of basic photographic principles. It will explain what the 85 means (focal length of the lens in mm) and why it is different from a 28 mm lens. I think having a basic understanding of the technicals can go a long way in improving the aesthetics of your images. It will also help read and comprehend the postings here, so that you can make more informed decisions.

 

You might also want to think about a flash for your camera as well. Even if it is a daylight wedding, you will probably want to fill the shadows caused by said daylight with a flash.

[ellis_vener_photography]

85mm f/1.8 + 35mm f/2 combination but I suspect your lens quality will be the least of your problems.

[evan_goulet]

Looks like Peter beat me to it.

[russ_konrad]

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - about $400 or so online.

 

I have shot more than a few weddings using this lens all day.

[kevin_swan1]

<I>i dont know what a "prime lens" means? what does the 85 stand for? And the 28/1.8? Its more expensive, but it has a lower number. oh, im so confused!!</I>

 

<P>I would say, it depends on your priorities.

 

<P>If your top priority is to acquire gear to eventually get into professional wedding photography, then I would take your $700 and invest it in some good photography books, a flash, and a fast (constant f/2.8 aperture) wide-to-normal (17-55) pro zoom, as a bare minimum.

 

<P>If, on the other hand, the absolute top priority is for your friend to be happy with her wedding photos, then I would strongly recommend you take your $700 and hire a professional wedding photographer for her, possibly as a wedding gift. Then you can relax and enjoy your friend's wedding, and she could relax knowing she'll have professional-quality photos of her once-in-a-lifetime event.

[picturesque]

Since the wedding is outside, I'd get the 85mm f1.8. This adds a longer telephoto choice. If the wedding was inside, I might have gone for the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Inside, having a lens that has a wider aperture is important.

[jo_dinning]

I agree with Kevin on this one on all of his points...

 

I would also add that you should investigate your local camera club for some help and advice over the longer term, or take a night class.

 

A good book which will explain a lot of the basics that you are asking about is 'The new photographer's handbook' by John Hedgecoe. In parts it's a little dated now, and stems mainly from the days of film - however, all of the info on exposure, lenses, film speed, lighting etc are there and are still as relevant now as they were thirty years ago.

 

There are of course many books out there - the one above is just one of them - but ultimately you need to gain experience handling your camera. There are plenty of ways to do this, but I would suggest that if you want to stay on good terms with your friend after the wedding, you ensure that her wedding isn't your main 'training' day.

[amateur]

Hi Johanna,

 

I will second the first answer you received from Peter. It is best to get a book and study photography a little more before you jump in and spend money or shoot a wedding. I am sure you will get different opinions on what lens to get, but unless you understand the reasons and the diferent lenses, you will not be able to take full advantage of the equipment.

 

Good Luck!

[tdigi]

How do you use the camera and lens you have now?

[brianurbano]

personally i would use the 18-55 and with $500 or so find a 70-200 F4 L (Non-IS) version, with the money left over see if you can pick up a 430ex or good used 550ex flash.

[john_h.1]

Are you really planning to be a wedding photographer? The reason I ask is that you are apparently going to spend about $700.00 on equipment based on shooting a wedding for a freind and you should think beyond this one event. If you really had "big ambitions" to be a wedding photographer you would be well on your way to knowing what the 85 meant and what a prime lens was. If you paid several hundred or more dollars on a camera. it is good to know these things by now anyway. Perhaps you may want lenses that you will get by with for a wedding but are more useful for what you will likely do after.

 

Sure, the reccomendations so far are very good to help overcome dark lighting which is important. The lenses are also good for uses outside of wedding photography but you will forgo some other potential abilities such a having a longer range lens for personal use or a very stable tripod for those beautiful sunset scenes. Sure you will be told here that these primes are better than zoom lenses. I agree but unless you are going to be serious about photography it won't bee seen in the images. You might as well use the ease of zooms if you won't know what an f/2 is because that's what the primes are largely for. The image quality difference won't matter much with a prime if you are not very exacting about quality in the first place. Here too is another reason to know what an f/2 and the other stuff is about because you can use that to control how the camera actually creates a scene rather than just recording it.

 

Here's another issue often raised but not addressed here yet is that the lenses may be of little concern in the big picture. What about a backup camera and flash? It is a grave risk for any wedding photographer to be without a back up body or system. Murphy's Law is quite brutal when you are in a once in a lifetime event. If you do not have the backup, it can wipe out your budget in one fell swoop to get one. What will you do at the wedding with good wedding lenses and a malfunctioning camera?

 

Perhaps you should even re-visit taking on this responsibility. Is the catering, music, flowers and all that being supplied for free by freinds too? Freinds that will pay $700.00 for stuff they don't understand and hours of practicing on top of it? Years from now no one is going to remember the other stuff but the crucial and long lasting pictures will be all that's left. Is this really best left on your shoulders? You friend may see photography as being magically solved by the freind with the pricy fancy camera now, but is that really the best for her?

 

OK, if you are going to do this for real get one thing straight... You aren't going to buy your way to good wedding pictures. It won't work. Don't rush out ASAP buying stuff except the photography book(s) and practice with the equipment you have and decide what you are going to do with your photography in the future then choose based on what you learn and what you will need. Then get the stuff in time to practice like crazy with it.

 

$700 and hours of practice. I hope this is a real good freind.

[niccoury]

I agree with John.

 

Sorry to be so frank, but learn your trade BEFORE signing onto something as big as a

wedding.

[eric_gundersen]

I was asked to shoot a wedding in 1992, when I was a naive 18 years old, and doing some photojournalism work for a local newspaper. My boss put some pressure on me to do it for his stepson, who was looking for a cheap photographer (people always seem to want to cheap out on hiring the photographer.. bad idea).

 

Although I had some solid photographic knowledge, I had no idea what was customary behavior for a wedding photographer, or what shots to take. I loaded up my Nikon N8008, an SB-24 flash, and a mediocre zoom lens, and I headed off to the church.

 

It was a disaster. I had no idea what I was doing. I used the flash the whole service, climbing all around the altar to get the right angles. They were visibly annoyed, but I was busy shooting and didn't really realize it until later on.

 

I didn't get the shots that are usually customary, I didn't shoot the right people, I didn't have the right equipment. I took no portraits of the wedding guests at the reception.

 

And to top it off, after I casually mentioned where I had my film processed, the groom went and picked up the photos himself without my knowledge, and I never got paid. In retrospect, I can't say I blame him.

 

My point in telling you all this is: If you don't know what you are doing, you probably don't want to be the photographer for your friend's wedding, unless you are O.K. with the possibility of turning your friend into an "ex"-friend. I still literally cringe to this day when I think about that experience.

 

I told myself I'd never again agree to shoot another wedding unless I really, really felt that I knew what I was doing.

 

I would heed the advice of the people on here who have suggested that you do not attempt to shoot your friend's wedding. I second (or was it third) the advice of others on here who have suggested buying some books on the subject. John Hedgecoe's photography book was the first one I'd read on the subject, and the principles are still sound (as Jo Dinning mentioned).

 

Here is what I would do: Politely rescind your offer to shoot your friend's wedding; There's plenty of time to find a photographer by the wedding in September. Buy some books. Study, practice, ask questions. Take a photo class. Pay attention to what the photographer at your friend's wedding does, and watch the process closely. If he's not busy, chat him up a little and ask a question or two (but don't bother him too much, he's got work to do).

 

Don't make the same mistake I did, and possibly ruin someone's special day.

[markonestudios]

Canon 17-40 f/4L and a 50 f/1.8, but as Ellis rightly points out, basic photography knowledge will be far more crucial to your success than lenses. You'll also need a backup camera body in case yours packs up on the day. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst...

<p>I hope your friend knows that you're an absolute novice, and that they're still comfortable having you capture the biggest day of their lives. That's the seriousness with which you MUST treat the occasion. Anything less is unacceptable...

[evphotography]

For proffesional quality lenses under $700 Canon as a couple of them. They have the 17-40 f/4L & 70-200mm f/4L. Both of these lenses are excellent especially the 70-200mm. These can be picked up for about $600 or less and are truely a bargain for the quality of glass that they are. I just saw a recent post on Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8 on DP reveiw which cost about $1700 and was surprised to find out how poorly it performs in the corners. My Canon 70-200mm f/4L lens is so good that at less than $600 it is a steal.

[botchow_c]

hi!

 

First of all, thanks for the good respones and tips for the lenses.

 

Secondly, My friend knows that im not a proffesional photographer, she knows that i dont have a super camera and she knows i only got one lens. She also knows that i never shot people before, only landscape..

 

What she does know, is that i have a huge ambition and and a passion for photography, and she is the one telling me that- You can do this!

She is not super super picky about the photos, since she knows i dont have the right equipment.

 

When i got married, we didnt even hire a photographer (money issue) We asked a friend who we knew had a decent camera, and i aksed my cousin, who is far from a professinal photographer, but has ambitions to be.

 

The pictures fro my friend turned out amazing, and he didnt know what he was doing.

My cousin forgot her charger for her DSLR and took my broken little digital camera and took amazing pics with it.

The photos are not of your proffesional class maybe, but i think they are amazing, and they remind me of this beautiful day, just like photos should do.

 

And i think my friend Fernanada feels the same. They dont have any money to spend on a photographer, they are taking a risk here, and i dont think they care if i dont have all the fancy equipment. Since im doing this for free, they know they cant have those huge expectations.

 

Me however, will do everything in my power to make these pictures look freakin good! I tell you that :-) I already have some books here that im reading and trying to understand. (sometimes its hard for me, since im Swedish, and dont understand all the fancy camera expressions)

I signed up for a photography class this summer, and im going to try to do some weddings as a second shooter this summer, just to see how you guys are working.

 

I do know the F-stops and what they mean, i just dont understand the difference between some lenses, the milimeters. its all very confusing, but i'll learn!

 

So please dont tell me to not do this wedding, you have to start somewhere right?

Weddings here in America, i realized, are very different from swedish ones. Since wedding photography isnt a very big business in Sweden. Here it seems like HUGE pressure for the photographer, in Sweden, they dont really care, its just good if you get some nice pics. i refuse to stress out about this! :-)

 

Anyway- I think im going to have a great portfolio after this! Actually no, i AM going to have a great portfolio after this :-)

 

Thanks again!

johanna

[botchow_c]

what about this one, Canon Telephoto Zoom EF USM Lens

70-300mm, F/4-5.6, is this one better than the 70-200mm f/4L?

Is is better because it has 300 mm?

[kevin_swan1]

<I>what about this one, Canon Telephoto Zoom EF USM Lens 70-300mm, F/4-5.6, is this one better than the 70-200mm f/4L? Is is better because it has 300 mm?</I>

 

<P>No. Those are both terrible wedding photography lenses. Neither of them are fast enough.

 

<P><I>They dont have any money to spend on a photographer</I>

 

<P>Maybe not, but <b>you</b> do. You've already said you've budgeted $700 to try and give them the best wedding photos possible. So take that $700 and hire a pro. Even at such a low price, they'd still get photos that are miles better than what you will be able to take.

 

<P>Johanna, no offense, but you are asking some extremely amateurish questions, and demonstrating a deep lack of photographic knowledge. You've gotten a lot of good answers in this thread. Go buy some basic photography books and read them. But with respect to lenses, if I could only give you one piece of advice for you to remember, it would be this:

 

<P><b>All wedding photography lenses must have a maximum aperture of at least f/2.8. Anything slower than that is <u>too slow</u> for wedding photography.</b>

 

<P>That is why the two lenses you just asked about are useless for wedding photography. They both only have a maximum aperture of f/4, even at their widest (70mm) end. That is much too slow for wedding photography.

 

<P>As for the millimeters, you need lenses to cover the entire range from 17 through 200. You do not need anything wider than 17, or longer than 200. You will not get this range in a single lens. You will need to buy at least 2 lenses. And remember: <B>they must all have a maximum aperture of at least f/2.8</b>.

 

<P>If you insist on doing this wedding, then you owe it to your friend to buy and read the books that have been recommended to you, and to learn the difference between the various focal lengths. Manage your friend's expectations, and make sure she understands that your photos will be little more than high-resolution snapshots.

 

<P>I still think you should just take your $700 and hire a pro for her.

[joel_anderson1]

Greetings,

 

I am not one of those "don't do a wedding" people. If you are up front with your friends, as you have been, then the next step is to do just what you have done: Ask some folks who know what they are doing (or think they do). From what you say, you are willing to learn and practice. If you are willing to do that, you will get enough down by September to do a decent job.

 

The real pressure isn't to get the right shots - if you fail to, well, you aren't a pro and you told them that. You do want to make sure you get plenty of shots whatever they are. Often the challenge of a wedding is getting shots in horrible lighting conditions - inside a church where it is dark and no flash permitted. Or even if flash is permitted, poor use of flash makes terrible looking photos (but at least you get something).

 

I market to the folks who are not having what I call "full pageant" weddings. I don't like all day coverage with several photogrpahers and videographers. I am looking for people who want good photographs of a couple hours worth of events. And the people who are finidng me are not people who are trying to "cheap out" (well, some are but they are easy to spot and avoid) - but instead those who correctly recognize that guests dont' take great photos becaue they are part of they event and want a pro more because they are a stranger than because they are that good. Whole different approach.

 

Not everyone wants the bells and whistles of accomplished photographers, and often those urging you to turn down the work are just protecting their own turf (not referring to any commentator here - on some forums this subject gets really nasty). Brides and grooms are NOT stupid children that need our protection. Be up front and let them make their own decision.

 

The advice you have gotten is absolutely sound: Books and practice. Find weird lighitng problems to shoot (theatres, evening outside events). Look at what will be cruddy photos, post them online (LOTS of forums for this. CHeck out the digital wedding forum too) and find out how to fix them. You will learn it just fine.

 

Also, take lens recommendations and consider RENTING a lens for a week. Fast glass is irrelevant outdoors during the day (in terms of GETTING the shot - not the qualities of the shot). It isn't just a matter of how fast it is (you can read that); certain focal lengths will appeal to you more than others. You will know after you have used one for hours.

 

Flash is way more than sticking a strobe on your camera. To get a taste, check out this site: http://planetneil.com/tangents/ Along the left side are a number of subjects. I'd recommend reading them all, but particularly the ones on flash. It will help your "thinking" about how flash works and will cure a bunch of problems before they start.

 

All of that said, the posters here are still correct in a general sense. These are your frineds. Make sure they are getting what they want. People who don't know anyting about digital photography may think they can "cheap out" with you becaue you have a "cool camera" and for that reaosn you will take great pics. They would be wrong about that. Avoid this situation. Before I accept a job, I have a VERY long interview with the client, primarily to make sure they want what I offer in particular. I reject anything that looks like cheaping out.

 

Cheaping out - to me - is not just looking for a cheap photographer. That's fine. Its is more like a couple that recently approached me who had already chosen a photographer. As the expenses started going up in their planning, they wanted to cut costs, so the decided to trim back-way back--on the photographer. This is EXACTLY the situation posters are talking about above. They decided what they wanted, and now are looking for less. They will be unhappy at best, and an absolute nightmare are worst.

 

Otherwise,

 

Good luck to you. If you have a genuine interest in photography AND in people and their interactions, you will do fine!