Best gear for wedding photog?

[stitchbug]

I agree...I don't see why you'd need faster than 1.8
A lot of people shoot with "only" 2.8 even.

Make sure to bring extra batteries. I highly recommend Energizer Lithium batteries for your flash.
I shot my sister's wedding with one body and my 24-70-so it's definitely doable with not much equipment.
It would have been nice to have a 70-200 on a second body (with a second photographer )

[candleman]

its possible with prettymuch any kit lens (take my 18-135 for example) if you are going to use flash.
(when i mean flash i mean off camera, or bounced.. not built in flash.

if you are NOT allowed flash.
i'd say you need a minimum of a f/2.8 lens and a high iso camera like a D300..
preferably full frame.

[Ciscley]

Okay, so it's not technically camera equipment, but you *really* need to make sure you have a reliable assistant, and if you haven't worked a photo shoot w/ an assistant before, you can't just go out and buy one the night before.

I recommend someone who knows how to help stage people and how to do basic things on your camera, like turn it on (only half kidding), but who definitely isn't going to be tempted to take pictures themselves, especially with your equip.

[Jim Bryant]

Best gear for a wedding
16-35mm f2.8
28-70mm f2.8
70-200mm f2.8

Now, why in the hell would anybody want to take on a wedding with the slower 18-55 and 70-300mm lenses as they are slower than molasses and you're screwed if you can't use flash.

Now if you shoot with one lens...a 50mm f1.8, all your shots will have that same look to to every picture. What sets a pro from everybody else apart is the quality lenses in the bag and the knowledge of shooting a wedding.

[Austin_HXC]

Originally Posted by krossk

I would agree where the D80 is concerned, but the D90 shares the same sensor as the D300 and is very effective up to ISO 2500 without noise.

However, I'd still recommend faster glass than just a 50 f/1.8. I wouldn't even consider a (indoor church) wedding without a 2.8 zoom. I'm currently prep'ing for my first wedding in Sept. and will be adding a D300 to the arsenal just for that occasion. (That and 'cause I want one )

I think they meant more fast glass than just the 50 f/1.8. Like adding another fast glass like a 2.8 zoom. Hope that clarifies everything, if I understand correctly.

[LoveDSLR]

Originally Posted by julesjan

The only downside to the full-frame cameras (from what I can tell) is that you really need at least 2-3 lenses to get the range of my 18-200mm (which I love). And those FX lenses aren't cheap. I can still use the 18-200mm on the D700, but it takes it down to like 5 megapixels. Any ideas on best method of attack to solve some of the above mentioned issues?

D3/D700 users can use a Tamron 28-300 VC in place of 18-200 VR.

With your D90, you may consider getting a Sigma/Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and (rent) a 70-200 f/2.8 (or 80-200 f/2.8).

[krossk]

Wow - I guess my comment missed the mark completely.

I wasn't referring to faster than 1.8 - just a better selection of fast. constant aperature lenses. e.g. 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8.

[dhart]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Ideally: a full-frame camera that allows you to use super-high ISOs without getting piles of noise. The D80/90 arent much good past 400/800 whereas a D700/D3 can be used without a problem or compromise up to 6400+

Just an example:

D80: You can really tell the noise on the larger sizes. (ISO 1000, 20mm, f/2.8, 1/50 sec, flash prohibitted)


D700: Still a little noisy, but a lot better lighting (ISO 2000, 70mm, f/2.8, 1/125 sec, no flash)

[wdogg40]

How big is the wedding going to be? How many people attending? How many in the wedding party? Outdoor or Indoor? This should be able to help you decide what you should and shouldn't bring.

I'm going to shoot my first wedding next spring as well and will have the basics. I've taken pictures for the person whose wedding I'm doing and she knows how my photos turn out. I wish I had the money to get a lot of pro equipment, just as I'm sure she wishes she had more money to hire a "pro". Thing is there are a million of photographers that are better than I, but I'm good enough for her and that's good enough for me.

Talk to the couple way ahead of time and let them know what you plan to accomplish and then take confidence in knowing that you will be able to produce images that will capture their special day and something they can share with each other for ever.

[rt80639]

Originally Posted by kencaleno

Faster than 1.8? at 1.8 image would be a little soft, and if you went to 1.4 or 1.2 image would be even softer-Sorry, but I don't get the reasoning behind that. You cannot have photographed many weddings-I have done hundreds,some with 50mm 1.8 prime only.Ken

I'll disagree with this, but realize there are many different styles of shooting...you have to pick the one that you're comfortable with.

The 50mm f1.8 is a fine lens, but not very sharp from f2.8 and below. In contrast, the Sigma 50mm f1.4 is very sharp at f2.0, and the Canon L-series (f1.2) is even better. Personally, I like to shoot at the low f-stop (f2.0) because the natural light looks a lot better than the flash.

But hey, I'm no expert...but this guy is: Brian Hall. He's probably the highest paid wedding photographer in eastern Iowa, and his photos are amazing (check out the video and engagement shots...I'm in awe). I got to talk with him and observe him last weekend at a wedding we were both at (him = photographer, me = photo booth). Know what he uses? Two Canon 1D camera bodies (full frame) with a 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2, both with 580exII flashes. That's it...2 prime lenses. And he shoots at f1.2! Yeah, I didn't believe it either...but then he showed me some of the pictures that he took that night, and they were incredible.

But that's just my experience (and Brian's). My best advice would be too look at other people's work...people that you want to emulate...and see how they shot it. That might get you a little closer to figuring out what kind of equipment you want to bring.

Flower girl at f2.0, ISO 400: