popular wedding lenses

[rweakins]

looking to see what most wedding photographers suggest as a primary lens for a wedding. obviously it depends on the wedding but i'm just looking for a general review

[termina3]

You'll probably get some replies with 2 or 3 lens setups; a 28-70 and 70-200, with maybe something on the wider side to complement those.

I'm interested to see what real wedding photogs have to say…

[rweakins]

i have a 70-200 and i'm looking to add a 17-85 possibly depending on the reviews. just getting started w/ a couple of weddings.

[jessica.]

A wide for large parties, 85mm and I would say a 70-200 2.8 wouldn't hurt. You can have all the lenses you want though, if you lack skill/knowledge then you are toast. Not the good toast you have with eggs either. :D

[rweakins]

skill and knowledge will come with experience though.....for some

[jessica.]

skill and knowledge will come with experience though.....for some

And for all budding wedding photogs I highly recommend an apprenticeship. You are the photographer at a wedding, one that hopefully the woman or man will never have to repeat. You are there to document their every move. Do you really want to go in that with little to no skill? Sure, the first few weddings you do alone may suck and you may not care as you are gaining experience, but at whose expense?

I've never seen your work so you may have a natural eye. I won't get into that right now...or even tomorrow. I was just commenting.

[thechidz]

And for all budding wedding photogs I highly recommend an apprenticeship. You are the photographer at a wedding, one that hopefully the woman or man will never have to repeat. You are there to document their every move. Do you really want to go in that with little to no skill? Sure, the first few weddings you do alone may suck and you may not care as you are gaining experience, but at whose expense?

I've never seen your work so you may have a natural eye. I won't get into that right now...or even tomorrow. I was just commenting.

haha sounds like someone doesn't like new competition;)

[miloblithe]

The 17-85 has really small apertures across its range. What sort of lighting setup are you planning on using?

[pinktank]

17-55 usually does plenty in a wedding, with a 18-200 or 80-200 if you are daring/experienced

[NeXTCube]

FWIW, I use the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 in Canon mount on my crop body. The mighty Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM didn't exist three years ago when I bought it! :) Of course, I carry other lenses, including a 50mm f/1.8 prime; the 50 makes a good portrait lens on the crop bodies (it crops out to look like 80mm) and the wide-open aperture gives you lots of DOF control. I also have a 28mm f/1.8 prime that crops out to 45mm and makes a great lens for available-light candids.

[rweakins]

And for all budding wedding photogs I highly recommend an apprenticeship. You are the photographer at a wedding, one that hopefully the woman or man will never have to repeat. You are there to document their every move. Do you really want to go in that with little to no skill? Sure, the first few weddings you do alone may suck and you may not care as you are gaining experience, but at whose expense?

I've never seen your work so you may have a natural eye. I won't get into that right now...or even tomorrow. I was just commenting.

for me it's been friends of mine and they know that i'm just getting started so it's a risk they know they are taking but at the same time they have seen my other photography and like it enough to take a chance and help provide me with the experience.

The 17-85 has really small apertures across its range. What sort of lighting setup are you planning on using?

well i'm not looking to buy a lens just for ONE wedding but a versatile one that will handle multiple lighting situations with relative ease

[Westside guy]

haha sounds like someone doesn't like new competition;)

That may be - or it may also be someone who's seen how much hiring "a friend with a dslr" can screw up your wedding photos. And it's not like you can go back and redo the shots. I'd never shoot a wedding for a friend unless I was darn sure they knew what they were getting (and not getting).

One of two things is going to happen over the next five years or so. Either the idea of wedding photos is going to change so people basically just expect snapshots; or enough mediocre results end up out there, and word of mouth will kill the idea of using "a friend with a dslr". You really need to compare the photos that come from a pro wedding photographer with the photos taken by a friend at a wedding to see just how different they are.

[rweakins]

That may be - or it may also be someone who's seen how much hiring "a friend with a dslr" can screw up your wedding photos. And it's not like you can go back and redo the shots. I'd never shoot a wedding for a friend unless I was darn sure they knew what they were getting (and not getting).

One of two things is going to happen over the next five years or so. Either the idea of wedding photos is going to change so people basically just expect snapshots; or enough mediocre results end up out there, and word of mouth will kill the idea of using "a friend with a dslr". You really need to compare the photos that come from a pro wedding photographer with the photos taken by a friend at a wedding to see just how different they are.

at the same time i'm sure some of the best photogs got their start from being "the friend with the dslr".

[ghostguts]

I use an 85mm f/1.2 IIL lens as my primary lens, complemented by a 70-200mm f/2.8 -- both telephoto, of course.

[jessica.]

haha sounds like someone doesn't like new competition;)
Nope, shoot away. I do not do weddings unless both arms are twisted. I am ill-equipted and ill-experienced in my opinion. When you are the one documenting one of the most important days of someone's life you need to get your head out of the clouds and come back down to reality land because your stunning landscape photos in no way qualify you to do a wedding.

When I say you I mean anyone who really takes on this task. It's such a huge event in my eyes.
That may be - or it may also be someone who's seen how much hiring "a friend with a dslr" can screw up your wedding photos. And it's not like you can go back and redo the shots. I'd never shoot a wedding for a friend unless I was darn sure they knew what they were getting (and not getting).

One of two things is going to happen over the next five years or so. Either the idea of wedding photos is going to change so people basically just expect snapshots; or enough mediocre results end up out there, and word of mouth will kill the idea of using "a friend with a dslr". You really need to compare the photos that come from a pro wedding photographer with the photos taken by a friend at a wedding to see just how different they are.
This is just it. I worked under a professional photographer and while we were processing the film the jobo slipped and all of the shots were ruined. He carried insurance and was able to recreate the wedding but you can tell that since it was staged the facial expressions were off, the excitement wasn't there, etc.

I have shot weddings after having said arms twisted that went badly. I tell people what a real wedding photographer should have equipment wise and then disclose what I have. I tell them that a real wedding photographer will know x,y,z, about where to be, when, etc. and I'll run around like a fool trying to keep up. I also tell them many smart wedding photographers will have a second shooter and extra bodies. I have a big body and extra cameras, but no second shooter. I try to prepare them and in the end things wind up as the wind up. One instance I was asked to just take shots, more like a photo journalistic style wedding. I did just that. 800 pictures later and about 450 of them being "proof worthy" the girl was in tears. She didn't want any of her getting dressed the day before and of the wedding, then cried when i "missed" the shot of her looking in a full length mirror and I shoot her face in the mirror. You know the classic shot. There was a nice list of "missed" shots e-mailed to me. One of those shots that was "missed" was impossible because I was released at 10 pm and apparently she wanted one of her husband carrying her out of the reception hall. /shrug

So no, I do not fear competition. I am in extraordinary company when it comes to many picture takers. I take pictures for fun, earn a small chunk of change taking shots of what I am better equipped to shoot and I leave the weddings to people who stress less than I do. :)

[termina3]

at the same time i'm sure some of the best photogs got their start from being "the friend with the dslr".

Sure. But most did some schooling and apprenticeship.

It makes me sick to see amateurs or semi-pros take work from full-time pros. Being one of the former, I'm always careful not to intrude on a pro's "territory." I'm just adding that impersonally, I don't mean to imply you're stealing someone's job.

[rweakins]

Sure. But most did some schooling and apprenticeship.

It makes me sick to see amateurs or semi-pros take work from full-time pros. Being one of the former, I'm always careful not to intrude on a pro's "territory." I'm just adding that impersonally, I don't mean to imply you're stealing someone's job.

an amateur or semi-pro doesn't have to steal the job. the bride and groom make the ultimate decision on their photographer. if they choose against the professional that doesn't mean the amateur "stole" the job. they were chosen. there is a reason the professional is a professional so if the bride and groom choose the amateur it's an obvious risk they are taking

Nope, shoot away. I do not do weddings unless both arms are twisted. I am ill-equipted and ill-experienced in my opinion. When you are the one documenting one of the most important days of someone's life you need to get your head out of the clouds and come back down to reality land because your stunning landscape photos in no way qualify you to do a wedding.

When I say you I mean anyone who really takes on this task. It's such a huge event in my eyes.

This is just it. I worked under a professional photographer and while we were processing the film the jobo slipped and all of the shots were ruined. He carried insurance and was able to recreate the wedding but you can tell that since it was staged the facial expressions were off, the excitement wasn't there, etc.

I have shot weddings after having said arms twisted that went badly. I tell people what a real wedding photographer should have equipment wise and then disclose what I have. I tell them that a real wedding photographer will know x,y,z, about where to be, when, etc. and I'll run around like a fool trying to keep up. I also tell them many smart wedding photographers will have a second shooter and extra bodies. I have a big body and extra cameras, but no second shooter. I try to prepare them and in the end things wind up as the wind up. One instance I was asked to just take shots, more like a photo journalistic style wedding. I did just that. 800 pictures later and about 450 of them being "proof worthy" the girl was in tears. She didn't want any of her getting dressed the day before and of the wedding, then cried when i "missed" the shot of her looking in a full length mirror and I shoot her face in the mirror. You know the classic shot. There was a nice list of "missed" shots e-mailed to me. One of those shots that was "missed" was impossible because I was released at 10 pm and apparently she wanted one of her husband carrying her out of the reception hall. /shrug

So no, I do not fear competition. I am in extraordinary company when it comes to many picture takers. I take pictures for fun, earn a small chunk of change taking shots of what I am better equipped to shoot and I leave the weddings to people who stress less than I do. :)

as fas as "missing" the shot. i'm just getting started and the first thing i did was get together a contract that protects you against things of that nature. i'll even send it to you if you want it.

[compuwar]

at the same time i'm sure some of the best photogs got their start from being "the friend with the dslr".

Not really- the best wedding photographers have been at it longer than the "friend with the dslr" has existed. One wedding photographer I know just got flown to Scotland to shoot a wedding- he's been doing weddings for more than 20 years. If I were to go into wedding photography, I'd want to shoot with him for a season or two- he's encountered pretty-much every situation "friend with a dslr" will ever run into and have to try to figure out for the first time in real time while trying not to screw up the wedding photos.

Just like most professional photography, it's more about dealing with the client and the corner cases than it is the camera. Spend some time reading the threads by the wedding pros on dpr, and you'll start to see what sort of skills and business acumen it takes- especially some of the bridezilla stories. Add in the stories about the random GWC "wedding photographers" and see how bad it can go. Most of the skills that make a great wedding photographer have absolutely nothing to do with owning a dSLR or taking snapshots at friend's weddings.


as fas as "missing" the shot. i'm just getting started and the first thing i did was get together a contract that protects you against things of that nature. i'll even send it to you if you want it.

Wedding photography can still fly or die on word-of-mouth. Think any of the bridesmaids will want to hire the photographer who "missed the shot, but that's ok, the contract said he could!?"

[MacDawg]

as fas as "missing" the shot. i'm just getting started and the first thing i did was get together a contract that protects you against things of that nature. i'll even send it to you if you want it.

I'm confused... did you just say that the first thing you did was get together a contract that protects you from your client if you screw up their once in a lifetime wedding?

Tell me that isn't what you just said and I misunderstood

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[rweakins]

I'm confused... did you just say that the first thing you did was get together a contract that protects you from your client if you screw up their once in a lifetime wedding?

Tell me that isn't what you just said and I misunderstood

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

the sole purpose of the contract is not to warn people that you will miss shots. the purpose is to protect yourself, although you might miss a shot because of some silly quark or malfunction. no photographer can guarantee that every shot will be captured so parts of the contract cover that as well as just legal mojo crap as far as indemnification etc... but no the contract in no way has the sole purpose of inferring i won't "capture the moment".

[jessica.]

as fas as "missing" the shot. i'm just getting started and the first thing i did was get together a contract that protects you against things of that nature. i'll even send it to you if you want it.

When I used the word "missed" shots I was being semi sarcastic. The pre-wedding discussions (numerous discussions) all included a shot list. On said shot list there was a nice note of shots that were absolutely not necessary or desired by the groom, bride, and whoever wrote the check out to me. I didn't miss a thing. They missed the shots after they decided it would have been nice to have them.

As for the contract. In all my years and all my dealings with carrying a pro's bag around at weddings, I've never stumbled upon such a contract that basically gives you expressed leniency to miss anything. I do not want your contract but I would love to see how that line reads. Is it, "if photographer misses a shot it is ok" or it is possibly more complex than that?

[Loc]

When I cover weddings I always have 3 lenses with me:

17-35mm f/2.8-4
28-75mm f/2.8
70-200mm f/2.8

This combination has never failed me but ymmv

[rweakins]

When I used the word "missed" shots I was being semi sarcastic. The pre-wedding discussions (numerous discussions) all included a shot list. On said shot list there was a nice note of shots that were absolutely not necessary or desired by the groom, bride, and whoever wrote the check out to me. I didn't miss a thing. They missed the shots after they decided it would have been nice to have them.

As for the contract. In all my years and all my dealings with carrying a pro's bag around at weddings, I've never stumbled upon such a contract that basically gives you expressed leniency to miss anything. I do not want your contract but I would love to see how that line reads. Is it, "if photographer misses a shot it is ok" or it is possibly more complex than that?

not exactly but it does cover myself like a said just incase of some random quark or malfunction at an untimely moment.

contract reads
... does not guarantee photographing any specific moment and will not be responsible for any missed moments. The client may present a list of suggested photos, but the photographer is unable to absolutely guarantee that those suggested photos, or any image will be captured.

and i have found a few contracts online just browsing in the past from other photogs that also include something similar to this.

[jessica.]

not exactly but it does cover myself like a said just incase of some random quark or malfunction at an untimely moment.

contract reads
... does not guarantee photographing any specific moment and will not be responsible for any missed moments. The client may present a list of suggested photos, but the photographer is unable to absolutely guarantee that those suggested photos, or any image will be captured.

and i have found a few contracts online just browsing in the past from other photogs that also include something similar to this.

Wow what a great contract! I mean you miss half the wedding and by gosh it's not your problem! No fault photography. :)

[rweakins]

Wow what a great contract! I mean you miss half the wedding and by gosh it's not your problem! No fault photography. :)

obviously you've never worked with people. people in general. today's population that will bring a law suit on you for anything they possibly can. the contract doesn't read:

i am not going to pay attention so if i'm napping when the officiate gets to the first kiss i can't be held accountable.

[compuwar]

obviously you've never worked with people. people in general. today's population that will bring a law suit on you for anything they possibly can. the contract doesn't read:

i am not going to pay attention so if i'm napping when the officiate gets to the first kiss i can't be held accountable.

Actually, it sort of does- however you've obviously not worked with litigious people. A contract doesn't stop a lawsuit, it may help you win one, but that depends a lot on the overall wording of the contract, how it's presented to the signatory, what discussion ensues and what actually happens at the shoot.

[rweakins]

Actually, it sort of does- however you've obviously not worked with litigious people. A contract doesn't stop a lawsuit, it may help you win one, but that depends a lot on the overall wording of the contract, how it's presented to the signatory, what discussion ensues and what actually happens at the shoot.

the contract is used as a protection. it might not completely stop people from bringing a lawsuit but the fact that it's been signed most certainly deters people from it. obviously i'm not going to the wedding and just sitting there not taking pictures. the contract basically covers mishaps and expenses. if i had done terrible in my first wedding i probably wouldn't have a second.

[compuwar]

the contract is used as a protection. it might not completely stop people from bringing a lawsuit but the fact that it's been signed most certainly deters people from it. obviously i'm not going to the wedding and just sitting there not taking pictures. the contract basically covers mishaps and expenses. if i had done terrible in my first wedding i probably wouldn't have a second.

My point is that E&O insurance is way more important than a contract for E&O- though you'll want a low deductible, as lots of carriers will "settle" for the deductible price every single time.

[tonie]

for canon, i think 17-55, 24-70, 16-35, and 70-200

[CrackedButter]

For Olympus the 12-60 is quite popular. (Don't forget the x2 magnification)

I used it for a wedding last month, had no problems.

[SpaceMagic]

OK. Guys. There's a lot of flaming going on here and the poor OP is digging a big hole for himself, which I'm sure he regrets...

I suggest two things:

1. People answer him on the simple question "which lenses do YOU personally use at weddings".

2. To the OP: Don't be the sole photographer. It is a big mistake, honestly. The best thing you could do is recommend they have a professional and for FREE, for your own development, also take pictures on that day. Throw money on any lense you want (although I wouldn't, lense buys come as a requirement not as a whim - you may not like wedding photography in the end), and just follow around the pro photographer taking your own shots. Put them on a CD at the end and give them to your Friends as your gift to them.

[rweakins]

i dont regret it at all. i basically don't mind the criticism. it's not like i have to listen to it or agree with it. doesn't bother me at all. and if any of the professionals in my area hadn't already had interns/apprentices this summer i would have been working with one but i like working through the stuff myself. i do have someone who helps me and back up bodies and what not just in case. like you said all i asked was for some lens suggestions. no big though.

[Mousse]

at the same time i'm sure some of the best photogs got their start from being "the friend with the dslr".

That's exactly how I got started.:p

Nope, shoot away. I do not do weddings unless both arms are twisted.

Wow. Again, exactly how I got started.:p My best friend wanted me to shoot his wedding. I declined. He kept the applying pressure each time we met. After weeks of pleading, he finally got tired of asking and placed me in a hammerlock. He said the only way out is by shooting his wedding.

The second time I was asked to shoot a wedding, I refused. No surprise there.:rolleyes: This time, the bride, also a good friend and a backyard wrestling enthusiast, locked me in a "Sharpshooter."

After that rumors started. About a month later, a 30-something lady grabbed me in a headlock for no apparent reason. I broke free and demanded to know what her problem was. She apologized and said that word around the campfire that I was an adequate photographer who would only work under threat of physical pain. She wanted me to shoot her son's birthday party.:eek:

Anyhow, my recommendation is to have two camera at the ceremony: 1 with a 70-200 2.8 and 1 with the fastest wide angle you've got. Oh, and you'll also want a back up for each. For the formal take your time and use what ever lense you're most comfortable with.