16 - 50 DA* or 50 - 135 DA*

Now the website is up and running and we have some bookings and some events under our belts, the two things that look to have half a chance of some profit are :-
1) nightclub shoots, we have already done three and more in the pipeline
2) Weddings, three booked for this year, all very low budget, small affairs being shot for free with only prints being charged (got to start somewhere !).

My current lenses (excluding old M series) :-
18 - 55 WR
50 - 200 DAL
100 DfA Macro

I am looking at investing in a "proper" lens, thinking the 16-50 DA* would actually give good coverage to both these types of events. But, doing some research, it seems many wedding togs shooting canon use the 70-200L ! I did not expect to need this length for a wedding shoot. I shot a portrait shoot recently and almost exclusively used the macro lens wide open, it is not bad at all.
Would the 16-50 and 100 macro suffice.
Comments, suggestions, advice, leftfield other suggestions all welcome

You could shoot a wedding with one lens ata pinch, but it's always nice to have options.

The most important aspects of weddings are crowd control, people skills and getting the shots done with a minimum of fuss. No excuses for getting it wrong. I use the 16-45mm, but could happily use a number of alternatives if I had them. (16-50mm, 17-70mm, 18-55mm, 18-135mm, 18-250mm.....)

A 50mm is useful for low light portraits.

As you suggest, I would say 16-50 and 100 macro would be fine (for now) out of those options.

The 50-135 is the 'crop equivalent' of a 70-200 on a full frame so that advice is almost identical.

You made need one lens faster still, the last wedding I shot used the 16-50, 50-135 and 55 F1.4, macro wasn't needed as the 16-50 can get close enough.

If you don't have a 2nd body, get one, not just for back up which you will need, but to reduce lens swapping / increase speed. Backup body should be the same as what you already have. Make sure you synchronise their clocks.

Proper flashgun and good knowledge of fill in flash in daylight is a skill that will pay you dividends, and should be learnt well so start learning now!

8x 4GB memory cards is a far better option than 2x 16GB cards!

If you want to stand out and have a portfolio thats a little bit different, get a fisheye and get stuck in on the dance floor!

Good luck!

Thanks for replies. I completely understand the crop comment re the 50-135 v 70-200 but these guys are also shooting crop sensors !

Appreciate comments about crowd control, we have a few other family and a 50th birthday with 120 guests to practice on but this is definately a weak area that needs sorting fast !

The other train of thought (or the most prominent of the mass of trains in my head at the moment !) is to keep shooting the club with the 18-55WR as they are more than happy with the shots we are producing and go for the 50-135, or then do I sacrifice 10mm and get the 60-250, but I think the F2.8 would be more suitable than F4
I have a second body, not a second K20 but a Kx. I will also have a second shooter att the weddings but unfortunately he shoots a crop sensor Canon He has kit 18-55 and a nice 70-300

Most of the wedding shooters I see on other forums are using D700s and 5D MKIIs. Canon shooters normally seem to go for the 24-70mm F2.8 L and 70-200mm f2.8 IS L.

some really useful info from Danny there

agreed and all taken on board. We are not pitching above ourselves with these weddings, they all know we have not shot a wedding before, but all are on a budget where if we were not doing it a family member would be shooting with a compact. This does not mean I take it lightly, I will meet each couple and scout each location, lighting I am okay with and have everything I need in this department but know my IQ and amount of keepers could be increased with a better lens. Unfortunately ther is limited space left on the pllastic so I cannot get both 16-50 and 50-135 so trying to work out my best option.
Is the IQ of the 16-50 hugely better than the surprising quality of the 18-55WR ?

Probably not but in this instance you are paying for the speed of the lens rather than the difference in IQ. I would have thought f2.8 is a must on a wedding shoot, especially if you aren't using a good high ISO capable body.

But then, as I have never done a wedding (and have no intention of doing so)I could be totally wrong.

The tamron 17-50 f2.8 looks like more than a viable alternative to the 16-50 from where i'm standing. Check out Gary Stafford's concert pics in the Your Photos section (JLS was the latest one). He also uses the 50-135mm, and it seems a marriage made in heaven from whe quality of his shots.

It's perfectly possible to shoot a wedding with an f4 lens Mike, but depending on the situation the techniques used may vary accordingly.

Whatever you use for a wedding complete confidence with equipment and people is the order of the day.

Strangely enough at a friends wedding in August the pro was shooting with a D700.

The only conversation we had went like this.

Pro: 'Hmm, Pentax kit, wouldn't mind some of your lenses'

Me: 'Wouldn't mind your camera body'

Knowing nods and smiles, then just kept out of each others way.

Probably the most interesting photographic conversation I've had!

As Mike suggested the F2.8, especially on the 50-135 for portraits (as you already know from your 100) will come in very, very handy, especially in the church and receptions where light is at a premium. This should be a minimum requirement for your pro kit.

Unless you intend to use flash for everything (not advisable during a church service!) then you will find that quite often F4 just isn't fast enough. There is no substitute for fast high quality glass, this is one area you really shouldn't skimp on!

Other things to remember :- can or 2 of Red Bull, bars of chocolate to keep you going, a spare shirt, pain killers(!), double the amount of batteries and memory cards than you think you will need, a photocopy of needed photos for you, the best man, the ushers and your 2nd shooter (also email a copy to everyone's smartphone!), diffusers for flash guns, umbrellas and anything else you can think of!

Don't forget, for most couples it's the first time they're getting married, so apart from being able to control the herd, they will look at you as a font of all knowledge! After all, you're the experienced 'wedding person' so be as well prepared as possible!

That's because having a similar FOV is not the same as actual magnification. I have just left my 50-135mm in the UK and brought a 70-200mm to Oz as the 135mm end was not long enough.

I did some test shots inside York minster last week with a new body. High ISO and using a 24-70mm f/2.8 I'm well pleased.

If you’re using lenses slower than f/2.8 then a K5 would be a huge benefit for low light shots.

Hi ISO, low noise and fast glass greatly increases your exposure range available for use.

I see lots of wedding shoots here at the coast on weekends. Even with great light, outdoors, the 70-200 is widely used.

The 16-50mm f/2.8 is a great lens. A 70-200mm would be a better compliment to it than a 50-135mm - IMO.

Best regards

1) Will also have a look at the tamron, have seen this mentioned a couple of times now and thanks for link
2) Other things to remember - LOL, looks like I am not the only one with borderline OCD

It seems to be the old dilema ...

Need to do some shoots to get some money to get the gear I need but need to do some shoots for no money to get the experience I need to charge but need the kit to do the free shoots.

Viscous circle that only my flexible friend can solve

If you start to do that, your going rate will stay zero. And something that costs nothing has no value.

So be careful! If you are good enough to shoot a wedding, for example, you are good enough to charge properly for it. If you are not good enough to do a wedding, then don't do it till you are.

So where do you get the skills? Practice, practice, practice the individual bits first. Go into a church, take low light shots maybe with a couple of friends to pose. Practice the group shots with fewer people. Practice fill-in flash outdoors.....take lots of picturesw until the camera part is second nature.

Then you onloy have the people to deal with.

John speaks very wise words, its a viscous circle of charging less and less just to get a foot in the door, which doesn't do anyone any favours at all. Yes the wedding photography market as it was run 20 years ago is unsustainable nowadays, but that doesn't mean doing things for free/cost is sustainable.

A colleague of mine's wife, who wanted to do some occasional wedding photography, built-up a portfolio by getting a couple of her friends to dress-up in wedding clothes from a charity shop, and took some shots outside a closed church in the country. Which also had the advantage of being a completely controlled shoot.

A couple of days of Photoshop work later (...removing tattoos and blemishes, adding soft-focus and highlights, etc...) she had sufficient shots that then got her some paid work.