Canon lens for wedding photography for under $800?

Hi

To fit your budget I would get:

• Canon 50mm f1.8 for portraits
• Tamron 17-50mm or 28-75mm F2.8 for group shots
• Canon 70-200mm F4 - for candid shots, portraits

You can get all these for about $1000

Sigma makes a 50-150 f2.8 for $750 new you might want to consider. But if I were in your position I'd look for good used lenses. Or just save up some more money and buy the professional lenses you actually need (if you really want to do this as a business).

Bryan,

Not to be a wet blanket or anything…but there are countless disaster stories that start with people who try to get into wedding photography yet have severely limited budgets and even more limited experience and knowledge.

To give you an idea of what you’re getting into…one does not use a lens for wedding photography; one uses several. Just as one does not use a camera body; one uses at least two.

A wedding photographer might arrive at the venue with the 40D as a secondary / backup camera, or even the primary; it’s a fine piece of gear, if a bit dated. At the least, it would be coupled with another 40D (30D minimum), preferably by now a 7D. But the ideal kit would be a couple 5DIIs, or at least a 5DII and a 5D. Why two cameras? Partly to enable fast switching of lenses, but mostly because cameras fail, and failures are guaranteed to happen at the worst possible moment. If you’ve got a second camera (and, ideally, a third within running distance, either slung around the neck of your assistant or locked in the trunk of your car), you can keep going without missing a beat.

An ideal wedding lens kit would consist of two trios. On full frame, it’d be the holy trinity of f/2.8 zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) coupled with the holy trinity of fast primes (35, 50, and 85; whether the L versions or not is more a matter of personal preference than budget). The 24-70 stays glued to the secondary camera for instant access, and the others get mounted on the primary as called for by the specific scene. A minimalist might choose for creative purposes to forgo the zooms, but even she will have a spare 50 f/1.8 stashed in a pocket and probably have another pocketable wide and telephoto prime buried at the bottom of the bag “just in case.”

Cameras and lenses are only the beginning. Flash is essential for a wedding. Figure on at least two hotshoe-mounted flashes (each of which would eat up half your budget) plus stands, umbrellas, wireless triggers, flash meter, and perhaps some studio strobes with all their accoutrements.

There’s also tripods, monopods, packs, reflectors, and a whole host of other things that are referred to as accessories but aren’t all that optional when it comes right down to it.

And gear is the least of your worries. Planning ahead of time, being at the right place at the right time to get all the essential shots, rapidly working through the formals while soothing egos and coaxing smiles out of kids and cousins…post-processing…making an album…billing and bookkeeping and advertising and and and and and and…

…and if you think the path into wedding photography starts by adding an under-$800 lens to a 40D, you’re having carnal relations with Mickey’s dog.

Cheers,

b&

Though Ben is probably sort of right I can imagine that there are circumstances (and entire countries) in which a lightweight approach is o.k.

If one gets paid for it I would vote for a simple backup body like a second hand 30D.

That leaves enough money for a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and à Canon EF 50/1.8.

Good luck and have fun! Matthijs.

To simply answer your question, I would say for another couple of hundred dollars, I would go with the 17-55 2.8 IS. v/r Buffdr

I will hit on one thing that Ben pointed out. You need two of everything. If your entire rig (reguardless of how simple or complex it is) burst into flames and went up in smoke in the middle of the event, you should be prepared in such a way you can grab a back up that is equally capable and continue on. In my opinion, this is not an option. If are shooting all natural light with just one lens for the full event, then fine. You still need two of every thing. For me, the exception is that I don't have a direct back up to my 70-200. However if I put the 24-105 (normally on a 5D) and put it on the 40D (normally has the 17-55 f2.8 IS) then it gives me effectively 168mm....I can work with that.

Jason

To be fair, perhaps (PERHAPS) by "wedding photography" the OP means "taking pictures at my friend's/relative's wedding, as a DSLR-toting guest." Which, of course, is a whole 'nother can of worms ("Uncle Bob" effect anyone?) but at least responsibility-free.

The guy is 14 years old, a photo enthusiast (as stated in his biography), I don't think anyone expects him to have a 5Dmk2 with 70-200 F2.8IS as backup :)

Kudos to him, I wish i were this serious in my teens.

“I use the Canon 40D . . . lenses for wedding photography.”

The EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8IS USM is arguably the best zoom lens for most Weddings applications using a 40D.

Tamron makes two similar lenses.

A skilled operator could manage mostly all Wedding Scenarios a 40D with two inexpensive Primes:

>EF 35F/2

>EF 85F/1.8

In addition to these two Prime Lenses, careful and critical use of the kit lens you already have could be employed, should you require the wider FLs or around the 45mm to 55mm range, in good light or with Flash assist.

***

Addressing areas outside your question:

For Wedding Photography - you should consider that a second (and IMO) a third camera is mandatory, as are, at least having two Flash units (IMO you need three).

Also, in many countries, it is an expectation of the B&G (and other Photographers) that they enter into a contract with the Wedding Photographer (or Second Shooter).

If your intention is to shoot Weddings in the near future, you should investigate what, if any restrictions, there are upon you entering into such contractual arrangements.

WW