Recommended Gear for photographing a Wedding

smdweb

I have a Canon D450 with the kit lens and I want to invest in a new lens and a hotshoe flashgun.

I was looking at the Canon Speedlite 430EX II or the Canon Speedlite 580EX II as the flash. (Any Comments or suggestions)

I'm not sure what lens I would get best value from when it comes to future use and use for a wedding.

Any advice welcomed !

Budget wise I have about €600-€700 to spend overall ... I know this might not be much as lenses can be expensive, but I'm hoping to pick up some gear when I go to Lanzarote in the next few months.

mrboswell

smdweb wrote: »

I have a Canon D450 with the kit lens and I want to invest in a new lens and a hotshoe flashgun.

I was looking at the Canon Speedlite 430EX II or the Canon Speedlite 580EX II as the flash. (Any Comments or suggestions)

I'm not sure what lens I would get best value from when it comes to future use and use for a wedding.

Any advice welcomed !

Budget wise I have about €600-€700 to spend overall ... I know this might not be much as lenses can be expensive, but I'm hoping to pick up some gear when I go to Lanzarote in the next few months.

I would suggest that you hold off and save for the 580 EXII and 24-70mm L lens. You will certainlt get the use from that lens.

The 2 will cost you about €1500 though (in Ireland)

smdweb

Based on my research everything points to the 580 EXII so I think thats a definite!

Thanks for the tip on the lens ... my next point is will any 24-70mm lens do or would you go for the Canon series lens. There are Tamron lenses 28-75 would that do the same job??


I'm not totally up to speed on the numbering used when describing lenses, e.g. 24-70mm ... are there any on-line sources which discuss and explain these?

charybdis

If you are photographing a wedding as the primary photographer the received wisdom is that having to ask that question makes it clear that you're far too inexperienced to do a competent job and probably shouldn't be shouldering the responsibility of trying to shoot professionally.

If you're an enthused amateur, however, your question is much more reasonable. I'd recommend one or two short and fast prime lenses that will allow you to shoot candidly in low light without disturbing your subjects with flash or calling attention to yourself. There are many cheap and excellent Canon prime lenses that suit this purpose that are reasonably inexpensive and you could comfortably buy one or two of them given your budget.

hcnyla

This wedding you intend doing, is it for a friend or will you be paid to do it?

Covey

Great advice on wedding gear from the great man himself, Judge Joe Brown

PopeBuckfastXVI

Covey wrote: »

Great advice on wedding gear from the great man himself, Judge Joe Brown

lol... charging more for pics than your kit is worth... priceless!

Borderfox

As an alternate maybe hold off on the flash and buy a 50mm f1.4 and a 28mm f1.8?

smelltheglove

Just a word of advice, on the few occasions a visited Fuerteventura, neighbouring Lanzorte I had in mind different items I wanted to buy, not once did I buy there as the saving if at all was so minute I would rather spend in Ireland, most recent item being a cpl filter which would have been circa €60 here that I was quoted iirc €72, being a discount since I told them I was a photographer, the price put on the filter was over €100:eek:

Is there not a problem with lots of camera stuff being bought in Lanzerote actually being dodgy crap and people ending up with nothing but hassle?


I believe I remember reading something like that on here before...?

crazydaize

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there not a problem with lots of camera stuff being bought in Lanzerote actually being dodgy crap and people ending up with nothing but hassle?


I believe I remember reading something like that on here before...?

I've been there a few times, mostly for work. I definitely wouldn't by anything electronic related in the Canaries.

Sleepy

There's also a serious clampdown by customs. Anything you buy in the Canaries you technically should be paying duty on.

Nforce

Borderfox wrote: »

As an alternate maybe hold off on the flash and buy a 50mm f1.4 and a 28mm f1.8?

Also,maybe something like a 70-200mm f/2.8 or a long prime lens for close-ups, ring exchanges etc when you don't want to be intruding on the happy couple?

swingking

I was at a wedding recently and the pro only used a 40D, a 17-40 l and a flash. Still got fantastic shots.

The only thing I'd add to the list is a good fast zoom. The 70-200 f2.8 IS would be the perfect choice

daycent

Sleepy wrote: »

There's also a serious clampdown by customs. Anything you buy in the Canaries you technically should be paying duty on.

Slightly off topic... I'm going to Tenerife soon and was planning on bringing my camera gear, will I be alright on the return journey? Anyone have any experience of this?

Sleepy

You'll be fine, just don't bring the boxes or receipts showing you bought something in the canaries!

smdweb

Thanks for all the suggestions.

I just checked out the 70-200 f2.8 IS - looks like a great lens but expensive.
There is a non IS version which knocks about €450 off the price.

I know I will need a fast lens, somebody mentioned the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM which is a fairly decent price.

Thanks to all who commented
... to answer another comment, this is just a favour for a friend but I am an avid photographer who just switched cameras and now I am buying gear to build my kit as well as getting some experience of event photogaphy.

Carrigman

swingking wrote: »

I was at a wedding recently and the pro only used a 40D, a 17-40 l and a flash. Still got fantastic shots..

That seems like an excellent wedding set-up.

The trick is not to be overburdened by too much gear - it gets in the way. Weddings move along at a speed of knots and you can't afford to be faffing about changing lenses every minute.

It's all about having a good eye and knowing how to use your equipment.

I photographed several weddings using a Mamiya 645, a standard lens and a flash (used very sparingly). The last wedding I shot I used a Canon 24-105 lens (on a full frame 5D) for most of the shots.

The one indispensable item of equipment I would urge on anyone doing weddings is a tripod.

John

My name is Mud

Dunno if it helps, but...

Im a hobbyist with a 500D, and was at a friends wedding recently. Brought the 50mm f/1.8 with me and got results along the lines of this without using any flash

Effects

smelltheglove wrote: »

I was quoted iirc €72, being a discount since I told them I was a photographer, the price put on the filter was over €100:eek:

Funny how you get a discount for being a photograper, why else would you be buying the filter.

smelltheglove

Effects wrote: »

Funny how you get a discount for being a photograper, why else would you be buying the filter.

Ah I think it was a sales line, I never went back anyway after that time. Lenses were stupid prices as well.

daycent

Carrigman wrote: »

The one indispensable item of equipment I would urge on anyone doing weddings is a tripod.

I'm curious as to why you would need a tripod at a wedding? Do you use it for indoor shots?

I used one once outdoors for a group shot, but that was only because I was using the self timer and getting into the shot. (friend's wedding!)

pete4130

Last weddign I was at, I shot candid shots as a favour.....saw the "professional" shots and was appalled.....my friends thanked me for being there forgetting the good shots. all I used was 50mm 1.4 and 80-200 2.8 with no IS or VR stabilisation....might have played with an 85mm at some point too.....maybe there were some shots with the 24-70mm 2.8 outside too? I can't remember....shots are here

DK32

Nice photos Pete4130, pity the exif info is not available. I find this most useful when looking at peoples shots. It kind of tells the rest of the story for me when I look at peoples pictures and wonder what settings they used to achieve such a great result.

pixbyjohn

DK32 wrote: »

Nice photos Pete4130, pity the exif info is not available. I find this most useful when looking at peoples shots. It kind of tells the rest of the story for me when I look at peoples pictures and wonder what settings they used to achieve such a great result.

Look here

DK32

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Look here

Handy little app that John

pete4130

DK32 wrote: »

Nice photos Pete4130, pity the exif info is not available. I find this most useful when looking at peoples shots. It kind of tells the rest of the story for me when I look at peoples pictures and wonder what settings they used to achieve such a great result.

I'll switch exif data back on now....

pete4130

Exif available....

AnimalRights

pete4130 wrote: »

Last weddign I was at, I shot candid shots as a favour.....saw the "professional" shots and was appalled.....my friends thanked me for being there forgetting the good shots. all I used was 50mm 1.4 and 80-200 2.8 with no IS or VR stabilisation....might have played with an 85mm at some point too.....maybe there were some shots with the 24-70mm 2.8 outside too? I can't remember....shots are here

Odd but after looking at your shots I really preferred the colour over the BW ones, not to do with quality but just as pictures.
And what's odd is I'm a fan of BW generally.

drunkmonkey

slightly off topic but i've seen plenty of wedding photos where the picture has been black and white but the roses are red, just been playing in photoshop and wonder have I done it correctly, I very much doubt it, I just pulled out the magic wand and coloured in the rose, I presume there's a more professional way to do it..?

pullandbang

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I presume there's a more professional way to do it..?

Yep, it's called selective colourization and there's a million tutorials on You Tube. It's pretty easy once you get the hang of it. It uses layers and layer masks and a paint brush.

Thecageyone

I've always done it by creating a duplicate layer, desaturate the duplicate, then grab the eraser and erase anywhere over the layer you want in colour. Then simply flatten the image and save as ...


here's another very simplistic method -

http://digital-photography-school.com/mono-with-a-dash-of-colour-photoshop-cs2-tutorial

Nforce

Thecageyone wrote: »

I've always done it by creating a duplicate layer, desaturate the duplicate, then grab the eraser and erase anywhere over the layer you want in colour. Then simply flatten the image and save as ...

That's the method I use too.

drunkmonkey

Thecageyone wrote: »

here's another very simplistic method -

http://digital-photography-school.com/mono-with-a-dash-of-colour-photoshop-cs2-tutorial

that really is simple, I've learned a new trick, thanks a million

Fionn

@daycent: I was in Tenerife over the Christmas - had two Cameras and two lens with me (obviously brought as carry on) so you should be fine, actually have been through a good few airports - never had any probs!

@ drunkmonkey: sometimes the effect can be good but generally it tends to turn out tacky, although, lots of people do ask for it to be done, if i'm doing it i tend to desaturate the colours somewhat, so as not to overpower the photograph, but really i'd prefer not to do it at all

@ smdweb: if your the sole (main) photographer at the wedding, I'd suggest that you have a backup body and anything else you can get a second of (just in case). there's a tendancy for Murphy's Law to crop up at weddings

VisionaryP

drunkmonkey wrote: »

slightly off topic but i've seen plenty of wedding photos where the picture has been black and white but the roses are red, just been playing in photoshop and wonder have I done it correctly, I very much doubt it, I just pulled out the magic wand and coloured in the rose, I presume there's a more professional way to do it..?

Yes. The professional way is DON'T DO IT. It's fun for about 2.6 seconds, then you realise it looks absolutely ridiculous and gimmicky. It screams 'WOW, I have Photoshop, I'm SO COOL!!!' When the realisation kicks in that you've 'Schindler's Listed' a wedding photo, something that's supposed to be a treasured, timeless memento of a beautiful occasion, you'll never get a good night's sleep again and eventually give up photography FOREVER!

Thecageyone

That's nonsense. It can look pretty cool when done right, just don't over use the effect. If the bride and groom want it, then they should 'ave it. It's better than over processed HDR any day at least :rolleyes:

pete4130

AnimalRights wrote: »

Odd but after looking at your shots I really preferred the colour over the BW ones, not to do with quality but just as pictures.
And what's odd is I'm a fan of BW generally.

some I had to convert to BW, I wasn't using flash and in the church it was a mix of daylight, candlelight and differnt types of artificial light so there were different colour casts everywhere. They were also shot between 3200 & 6400 ISO, slightly underexpose and some cropped so the softness/noise wasn't as visible in them.

The reception ones were under dancefloor lighting and I was pretty damn drunk too :P