# Wedding Photag. Gear



## amanda0908 (Dec 31, 2010)

I was hoping to get a little guidance on what gear to buy- bare minimum- to do a wedding. And am I playing with fire if I dont have a backup camera body? What lenses specifically do I need??


----------



## cdino88 (Dec 31, 2010)

Welcome to the forums!

I have seen many wedding photographers only carry around only one camera body, but it certainly does not hurt to have a backup camera/battery/memory card.

I am looking to get into the same sort of thing and you are going to have to drop some decent cash to get professional looking results. This does not apply every single time, but many times.

You are going to need a decent flash, depending on your company either a 430EX II or a sb-600 at the minimum.

You are going to need a faster lens due to low lit rooms. Anything from a f/2.8 and lower should work completely fine, especially with a flash. Many wedding photographers carry around the 70-200mm f/2.8 as a necessity. Many also carry around an 85mm f/1.8. The 50mm f/1.4 - f/1.8 are carried around many times as well. 

This is a just the beginning though, so many more pieces of equipment could be bought to perform.


----------



## reznap (Dec 31, 2010)

Well... three things factor in to this equation I think.

*1)*  Level of experience of the photographer.

Also the most important.  There are exceptions.. but someone who has not spent at least a year or two OBSESSING about their picture quality, and constantly trying to improve during that time, has no business even being a second shooter at a wedding.  If there's one thing you don't want to F up, it's someone's wedding.

*2) * The equipment.

A full frame DSLR with a couple f/2.8 zooms and some faster primes, along with at least one powerful flash would be about what I'd consider the minimum if I were to shoot a wedding by myself.  I'd be more comfortable with a backup body.. even a cheap one.  Also, it's nice to have a lens with a different focal length already attached to a 2nd body.. this way you're ready if you need it.

*3)*  Level of experience WITH the gear.

Right now I have a T2i... but it's taken me about a year to get comfortable with it.  I would want to take at least a month or two to get comfortable with a new camera body before I decided to use it for something serious (like a paid shoot).

Anyway, tried to give a serious response in case you were actually being serious.


----------



## flea77 (Dec 31, 2010)

amanda0908 said:


> I was hoping to get a little guidance on what gear to buy- bare minimum- to do a wedding. And am I playing with fire if I dont have a backup camera body? What lenses specifically do I need??


 
Are you playing with fire if your camera quits in the middle of the wedding?

Next are questions like is the wedding indoors or out? Well lit or not? Day or night? Flash allowed or not? The answers to these questions tell us more about the lenses you will need as well as the camera you will need.

How about backup? Do you have a body that will shoot to two cards at once or will you be using a dedicated backup device on site? Or, will you just pray that nothing happens to your cards and if it does move to Siberia and hope the bride doesn't find you?

Bare minimum for me:

Two bodies both good to at least iso 3200 (note I said good to, not just that it will do that iso)
12-24 4 (for the bride getting ready, you need wide angles)
24-70 2.8 (mainly the reception and group shots)
80-200 2.8 (the actual wedding and candids so I am not disrupting them)
SB-600 x3 with stands, umbrellas, triggers, etc
Insurance and indemnification policy(PPA has one if you are in the US)
Sales tax cert
Contract
Backup drive for all my cards

Hope this helps.

Allan


----------



## sobolik (Dec 31, 2010)

I use a high megapixel camera and a wide angle lens.  It is too hard to get the textbook framing/composition at a wedding's pace. I will then crop out the perfect framing later. It especially allows to correct for lens distortion which makes the  photo 100% better and bordering on flawless.  I always shoot wider than what "looks good" through the viewfinder. And often I am surprised by an expression I did not notice when taking the shot. Also many don't realize that they are in the photo when the camera is pointed at someone else.  I can get 2,3 or 4 crops out of one 12mm photo that are sufficient resolution for 4x6 prints thanks to a high megapixle camera 

I use and consider the minimum (and all I need):
Nikon D90 (higher megapixel  camera)
Tokina 12-24mm (wide, wide, wide, love it, love it, love it)
Nikon 18-105 VR kit lens (very nice match to the D90)
SB 400 flash = Must be a bounce flash.
Polarizer filter. I use 82mm and step rings

I have an audience friend relative camera identified and agreed to seize if I break mine. If I had none to grab I would take one, even a point and shoot.


----------



## Novaman (Dec 31, 2010)

I will end the year with my first post on this site ..as this thread is exactly why I cornered Santa for my new Nikon D90 w 85/105 kit lens. Since I have bought the MBD-80 Battery Grip and have ordered a SB-800 Flash. Now the hard part... getting aquainted with the camera . I am more of a Kodak Instamatic Guy, but I am excited to get started. As our daughter is getting married New Years eve 2011. 
First thing is getting enrolled in a class ...I don't want to leave it on Auto for ever.. 
Any words of wisdom will be appreciated.. 
Happy New Year to all ! :thumbup:


----------



## KmH (Dec 31, 2010)

amanda0908 said:


> .....bare minimum- to do a wedding......


 
5 packs - Walmart.com: Kodak Blue Floral 'One Time Use' Disposable Film Camera w/ Flash (10 Pack) for Wedding, Bridal Shower, Engagement Party: Digital Cameras 

Hand them out to the guests. Collect them at the end of the reception :thumbup:


----------



## MissCream (Dec 31, 2010)

reznap said:


> Well... three things factor in to this equation I think.
> 
> *1)*  Level of experience of the photographer.
> 
> ...




Why would you need a full frame?


----------



## amanda0908 (Dec 31, 2010)

reznap said:


> Well... three things factor in to this equation I think.
> 
> *1)* Level of experience of the photographer.
> 
> ...


 
In case I was being serious? Wow, that comes across as quite rude. I've done weddings before, however I don't spend my time following around wedding photographers like a puppy dog, so I like find out what gear others prefer to see if it might be something I want to add to my bag.


----------



## reznap (Dec 31, 2010)

MissCream said:


> reznap said:
> 
> 
> > *A full frame DSLR* with a couple f/2.8 zooms and some faster  primes, along with at least one powerful flash would be about what I'd  consider the minimum *if I were to shoot a wedding by myself.*
> ...



For one, they handle noise better.  Also, they are better for shallow depth of field shots since you have more frame to fill without taking a step back, say with a prime lens.

I'd also want to be able to do high speed sync with a flash... and my Rebel's not having that.  Maybe I wouldn't need a full frame camera for that but a higher-end body at least.



amanda0908 said:


> In case I was being serious? Wow, that comes across as quite rude. I've done weddings before, however I don't spend my time following around wedding photographers like a puppy dog, so I like find out what gear others prefer to see if it might be something I want to add to my bag.



If you've done weddings before why are you asking 'umm what's the bare minimum gear to use for a wedding' ??


----------



## amanda0908 (Dec 31, 2010)

reznap said:


> MissCream said:
> 
> 
> > reznap said:
> ...


 
Because I don't believe in spending a ton of money on gear for two reasons- 1: if you're GOOD, you can make beautiful photos with whatever gear you happen to have and 2: if you spend you're time fussing with your gear you risk missing those "money" shots.


----------



## white (Dec 31, 2010)




----------



## reznap (Dec 31, 2010)

amanda0908 said:


> Because I don't believe in spending a ton of money on gear for two reasons- 1: if you're GOOD, you can make beautiful photos with whatever gear you happen to have and 2: if you spend you're time fussing with your gear you risk missing those "money" shots.



Ah, then you should go with KMH's suggestion.  This way you have many people waiting for the money shot.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 31, 2010)

white said:


>


 Share?


----------



## amanda0908 (Jan 1, 2011)

reznap said:


> amanda0908 said:
> 
> 
> > Because I don't believe in spending a ton of money on gear for two reasons- 1: if you're GOOD, you can make beautiful photos with whatever gear you happen to have and 2: if you spend you're time fussing with your gear you risk missing those "money" shots.
> ...


 
I'll be sure to keep that in mind. Stay classy...


----------



## oldmacman (Jan 1, 2011)

amanda0908 said:


> Because I don't believe in spending a ton of money on gear for two reasons- 1: if you're GOOD, you can make beautiful photos with whatever gear you happen to have and 2: if you spend you're time fussing with your gear you risk missing those "money" shots.



After you have spent some time on the forum you will realize that many people think they are ready to shoot a wedding without any experience. The fact that you asked the question hinted that you haven't shot a wedding before. FWIW, many photogs that want to get into the wedding business start out as second shooters, or assistants. The idea is to job shadow the pro and learn the ropes... In essence, follow them around like a puppy. 

Having multiple camera bodies means you can have multiple lenses mounted, which also helps to get the money shots. Good gear also means spending money on faster lenses for the times when flash is not allowed, or you want a shallow DOF to isolate the subject from the clutter. Those types of shots are very difficult with standard kit lenses.

Just my two cents, but reznap provided some good advice if you are willing to look a little harder.


----------



## MissCream (Jan 1, 2011)

reznap said:


> For one, they handle noise better.  Also, they are better for shallow depth of field shots since you have more frame to fill without taking a step back, say with a prime lens.
> 
> I'd also want to be able to do high speed sync with a flash... and my Rebel's not having that.  Maybe I wouldn't need a full frame camera for that but a higher-end body at least.



I see what your saying but you have to agree that you don't NEED a full frame camera to shoot a wedding nicely.

Sync speed is a killer, it drives me nuts that I can only go to 1/180... My mentor has shot weddings for over 30 years and right now has the same camera I have and his pictures are amazing. 

OP, I have been researching for the last 3 years, I have a mentor and this summer I will be shooting a wedding as a second shooter, there is NO way I would ever feel comfortable being the primary shooter at a wedding right now. I wouldn't want my name associated to work that wasn't to my standards (which -thanks to this forum- are ridiculously high...).


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

OK people here is the answer to every question on photography. It don't matter the question.

Just go out and buy the most expensive piece of equipment there is. It is guaranteed to make you the greatest photographer there is. You will have no problems at all.

If a new product hits that market that has warp speed flash sync dual core processing manual overdrive then you immediately need to sell your old model as it is now completely useless for any task at hand.  

Yes folks I hate to break this to you (I would not have to if you would do a little reading of photo magazines) but all of your equipment is woefully underpowered and under engineered. It is completely useless. In case you have not noticed the new and improved models have hit the stores and you need to go buy them. I mean how in the heck do you expect to take superior images by using that garbage you are using.  You must have full frame cameras and fast glass. Would you please get with the program.


----------



## heyjoe (Jan 1, 2011)

Lame. Nobody stated you have to get the latest and greatest.


----------



## ajkramer87 (Jan 1, 2011)

Sobolik do you have an online portfolio? Id like to see these wedding shots that you used basic equipment on that you seem to think are so good that you dont think anyone needs to buy better lenses.


----------



## KmH (Jan 1, 2011)

amanda0908 said:


> Because I don't believe in spending a ton of money on gear for two reasons- 1: if you're GOOD, you can make beautiful photos with whatever gear you happen to have ...


Total BS, because you can't make beautiful *wedding* photos in low light without strobed light, *unless* you have gear that is low-light capable
 Low light capable gear is expensive, though I guess what you consider expensive may not be what I consider expensive.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 1, 2011)

KmH said:


> amanda0908 said:
> 
> 
> > Because I don't believe in spending a ton of money on gear for two reasons- 1: if you're GOOD, you can make beautiful photos with whatever gear you happen to have ...
> ...


Ehhh... I don't think it's _total_ BS Keith; you're right, low-light is an expensive area to work in, but there's lots of other areas, landscapes, outdoor portraits, etc, where someone can make award-winning images with the cheapest body and lens.  Look at it this way:  How far ahead in IQ is even the cheapest lens made today compared to that which Ansel Adams used?  Seems to me people still like his pictures pretty well.


----------



## misstwinklytoes (Jan 1, 2011)

I was just wondering what "photag." was.  lol

Nah, jk.

Good luck on finding the information you need, OP.  This forum is tough on anyone wanting to shoot a wedding.


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

ajkramer87 said:


> Sobolik do you have an online portfolio? Id like to see these wedding shots that you used basic equipment on that you seem to think are so good that you dont think anyone needs to buy better lenses.



2 things.

1) I don't have model releases for the wedding photos nor do I care to get any. I am not here to peddle my work but to help others.

2) The attack dogs on forums would love nothing better than to use a photo - any photo - of mine as an excuse for their attacks.  After all I GASP! question sacred cows like fast glass. GASP! An infidel how dare he - we must attack. -  It happens all the time on forums.

From your tone I highly suspect your are ready to attack all you need is one sight of my photo, any one of them will do

ps try reading for understanding I never said "dont think anyone needs to buy better lenses" YOU did!

pss from your bragging list following your post I can see why you are so bent out of shape. 2.8, 2.8, 1.8, 1.8  Sacred cow being questioned?


----------



## gsgary (Jan 1, 2011)

amanda0908 said:


> reznap said:
> 
> 
> > MissCream said:
> ...




Lets see some money shots with cheap gear


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 1, 2011)

Big surprise... :thumbdown:

Do you even own a camera or do you just start crap on forums? You seem to be an expert on negative forum affairs, after all.


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

gsgary said:


> amanda0908 said:
> 
> 
> > reznap said:
> ...




ROFLMHO!  Try surfing the web. There are millions of "money shots" that were taken with "cheap gear"


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> Big surprise... :thumbdown:
> 
> Do you even own a camera or do you just start crap on forums? You seem to be an expert on negative forum affairs, after all.




Well who ever you are talking too can be expertly negatively sure that the Abraham Lincoln never said what you credit in the quote you had in your last post

_*"Use your better judgement, most  of what you read on the Internet are opinions, not facts. Even more so,  opinions stated as facts." - Abraham Lincoln*_


----------



## gsgary (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > amanda0908 said:
> ...




What you call money shot is probably a lot different to what i call money shots


----------



## KmH (Jan 1, 2011)

tirediron said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > amanda0908 said:
> ...


The thread is about shooting weddings. So my post should read, "you can't make beautiful *wedding* photos in low light..."


----------



## oldmacman (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> Light Artisan said:
> 
> 
> > Big surprise... :thumbdown:
> ...



It's irony. Of course Abraham Lincoln couldn't have been quoted on the Internet. Giving credit to Lincoln lends credence to the quote.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 1, 2011)

Thanks oldmacman, I never thought I'd have to explain my sig


----------



## flea77 (Jan 1, 2011)

tirediron said:


> Ehhh... I don't think it's _total_ BS Keith; you're right, low-light is an expensive area to work in, but there's lots of other areas, landscapes, outdoor portraits, etc, where someone can make award-winning images with the cheapest body and lens. Look at it this way: How far ahead in IQ is even the cheapest lens made today compared to that which Ansel Adams used? Seems to me people still like his pictures pretty well.


 
Adams used cameras ranging from I believe 4x5 to 11x14 for his serious work, that translates into 330MP to 2,540MP (using Ilford Delta 100 as a reference at 160 lines per mm). Find me a cheap camera that will take a single frame 2,540MP image with the latitude of Ilford Delta 100  I'll take two :lmao:

Allan


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

oldmacman said:


> sobolik said:
> 
> 
> > Light Artisan said:
> ...



No. Crediting Lincoln with the quote is presenting false information.  You don't claim that someone said something so that it gains credence. If it is harmful it is legally libel.  The parts that were not Lincolns words should be indicated as such.


----------



## amanda0908 (Jan 1, 2011)

Wow...this entire forum is full of a bunch of egotistical jackasses that think they are God's gift to photography. Not sure why everyone jumps everyone's case around here, this is, afterall, a BEGINNER'S forum, so if you are so magnificent, why don't you wander your way out of the beginner forum. A lot of people get on these forums to learn, not to read what some jackass that takes mediocre pictures and works at the Wal-Mart photo studio thinks. Clearly not many people on here shoot weddings because of their lack of ability and people skills. My opinion is that everyone on this forum (with a few exceptions) is so rude because they are completely worried that they aren't very good and someone with actual talent might someday swoop in and snag what few clients they may have.


----------



## misstwinklytoes (Jan 1, 2011)

No one can take my clients!


Cause I have none!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> oldmacman said:
> 
> 
> > sobolik said:
> ...




OMG!  :lmao:


----------



## usayit (Jan 1, 2011)

amanda0908 said:


> Wow...this entire forum is full of a bunch of egotistical jackasses that think they are God's gift to photography. Not sure why everyone jumps everyone's case around here, this is, afterall, a BEGINNER'S forum, so if you are so magnificent, why don't you wander your way out of the beginner forum. A lot of people get on these forums to learn, not to read what some jackass that takes mediocre pictures and works at the Wal-Mart photo studio thinks. Clearly not many people on here shoot weddings because of their lack of ability and people skills. My opinion is that everyone on this forum (with a few exceptions) is so rude because they are completely worried that they aren't very good and someone with actual talent might someday swoop in and snag what few clients they may have.



Sorry you feel that way.... but consider this


Your clients are going to redefine the term "jackass" and then some if they aren't happy with the final product from a once in a life time event that cannot be redone.

Perhaps there is a new market out there but rarely do people hire wedding photographers who describe themselves as "beginner".  Zero to bankruptcy is surprisingly quick in this country.

Don't let the responses here discourage you but you should filter some of the good points made.  If this thread does anger you or discourage you, then consider how much more heated it will be facing unhappy jackasses in person....  may be across the table with their lawyer.   Brides are some of the most unreasonable people to satisfy.... thank god it wasn't my business on the line.


good luck


----------



## ajkramer87 (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> ajkramer87 said:
> 
> 
> > Sobolik do you have an online portfolio? Id like to see these wedding shots that you used basic equipment on that you seem to think are so good that you dont think anyone needs to buy better lenses.
> ...


 
Not looking to attack, just want to see that you can back up all that diarrhea running out of your mouth. Im not bent out of shape in least. 3 of those 4 lenses I bought used. Ive spent a grand total of 1400 on all my lenses. Now tell me thats to much to have 4 great pieces glass.


----------



## amanda0908 (Jan 1, 2011)

usayit said:


> amanda0908 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...this entire forum is full of a bunch of egotistical jackasses that think they are God's gift to photography. Not sure why everyone jumps everyone's case around here, this is, afterall, a BEGINNER'S forum, so if you are so magnificent, why don't you wander your way out of the beginner forum. A lot of people get on these forums to learn, not to read what some jackass that takes mediocre pictures and works at the Wal-Mart photo studio thinks. Clearly not many people on here shoot weddings because of their lack of ability and people skills. My opinion is that everyone on this forum (with a few exceptions) is so rude because they are completely worried that they aren't very good and someone with actual talent might someday swoop in and snag what few clients they may have.
> ...


 
I also love how everyone on here assumed I am trying to make a business out of it straight off the bat. First, I am currently taking classes so I CAN learn valuable techiniques, etc. Second, I'm sure you and everyone else has noticed- gear can get expensive quick. If I'm looking to do weddings in the future I think it would be irresponsible to have no clue what gear would be needed to do a wedding and thinking I could go out and buy it all at once. Some of you may have that option, I don't. My husband is in the army and we get moved around constantly, so I couldn't even settle down to make a career out of it until he retires. So, I am trying to get a good idea of what gear is most desirable for weddings so that I can start buying it piece by piece as budget allows. I've been making steady income from portraiture for several years, but that is an entire world away from doing a wedding. I've also done three weddings (not many, obviously) and one of them I was thrown into as the bride was arriving because the photographer never showed. The camera? A Samsung point-and-shoot. The results? Beautiful. So no, I won't let anyone discourage me around here...I just find it a little rediculous and immature that people have to be so hostile over a simple question.


----------



## usayit (Jan 1, 2011)

Fine...  say what you say....

But do realize that there is really nothing specific about equipment for wedding.   No more than a there is a specific pen for fiction and non-fiction composition.   Go and study, practice, and learn.  Once you obtain a certain level of experience, you and only you will decide what equipment best suites your needs.   Trust me... when you get to that point, you will look back on this thread and laugh.   

Asking an internet forum what type of equipment is necessary is like your Husband posting "what type of weapon is best used in Iraq?"   Its absurd to think that any trained soldier wouldn't already know.   No different than a beginner asking for an equipment list for wedding photography.


Simply put.... you are placing the carriage before the horse... carriage being equipment and horse being experience.


In the many years I have been on the TPF, I have not once seen a thread with a "real" professional flat out asking for an equipment list.  Why?  Because they already have an idea.   Specifics on equipment and technique...yes...  but not generalized questions.


----------



## amanda0908 (Jan 1, 2011)

usayit said:


> Fine... say what you say....
> 
> But do realize that there is really nothing specific about equipment for wedding. No more than a there is a specific pen for fiction and non-fiction composition. Go and study, practice, and learn. Once you obtain a certain level of experience, you and only you will decide what equipment best suites your needs. Trust me... when you get to that point, you will look back on this thread and laugh.
> 
> ...


 
I get what your saying, and I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but let's look at it this way: If you are going to a police academy (which I have) to be a police officer (which I've been), do you not need a list of gear to buy before beginning the academy? Yes, you do. There are a hundred different gear belts, a hundred different handcuffs, more than I can count styles of boots, etc. Most, you need to know what type of sidearms are used in the field. You can't just walk into any department looking to get hired with ANY firearm, only specific firearms are allowed. Just like you wouldn't walk in to shoot a wedding with just any lens. So you need a list to look at, rent different models to shoot for yourself, and then ultimately decide for yourself which you like best. As you can see, this demonstrates both of our points. You need a list to start from, and then you can test different lenses to see what will suit you best.


----------



## usayit (Jan 1, 2011)

Understood... but there is one fatal flaw in your assessment.   

You don't go to school for wedding photography.   You go to school for JUST photography.   

Police officers don't enroll into school equipped for the beat.   That happens during and after their training.  Enrollees that have an in depth knowledge of side arms do so because of an interest that has spawned in firearms regardless of their decision to enroll.

I am have taken several courses of what would have gone towards a 2 year photo technology degree (done while i was unemployed).  Not a single course was specific to wedding photography...  you need to build a foundation first then specialize.   By then you'll have all the answers you seek.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 1, 2011)

I think half the problem is that this thread is too close to this one:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...m-photo-gallery/229725-kit-lens-weddings.html


----------



## oldmacman (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> oldmacman said:
> 
> 
> > sobolik said:
> ...



Think of it this way...
The quotation indicates, _"...most of what you read on the Internet is opinion, not fact."_ Abraham Lincoln didn't really say the quotation. It proves the statement by placing false credit to the author... irony/subtle attempt at humour. Get it?


----------



## amanda0908 (Jan 2, 2011)

usayit said:


> Understood... but there is one fatal flaw in your assessment.
> 
> You don't go to school for wedding photography. You go to school for JUST photography.
> 
> ...


 
LOL, that is so untrue- the first time I ever picked up a gun was after I was accepted and was given a "school supply" list. And I HAVE a foundation in photography, what I want to build on is what little experience I DO have in wedding photography. I've been asked to do another wedding in April, and another in October. Obviously the weddings I have done have been good enough to get a couple more jobs from it. But, people get a little stingy with information when it comes to wedding photography and like I said, we move a lot because of the military so I haven't had an opportunity to find a willing wedding photographer to let me so much as shadow them (or anything else for that matter) so you tell me: how is one supposed to learn a specialization without someone willing to teach them?? That is an honest question (even though I'm sure many will find it dumb).


----------



## PatrickCheung (Jan 2, 2011)

I've learned a few things through reading these wedding photography threads.  

1. Beginners like to believe that it's not about the equipment, but the photogapher's skill.  

While this is true, there's some things skill can't do.  Can a kit lens give you the same bokeh (not DoF, Sobolik, no need for that DoF calculator) as a High power, fast zoom or a fast prime?  If you can't use a strobe, can your crop sensor body give as clean photos as a full frame body at ISO12800?  If you CAN use a strobe, is a $350 strobe gonna be strong to bounce off high chapel cielings, or will you need that $500 strobe?  I'm sure amateur wedding photographers get decent results with cheap equipment, but you cannot get the results that a pro shooting a D3s and a 70-200/2.8 VR2 can.  There's a reason why people buy equipment like that, and it's not to show off.  

2. The professionally paid, fully licensed pros on the forum give sound advice, but the amateur/beginners like to argue point number 1.  

I was asked to shoot a wedding over the summer.  I wanted to deny the job, I knew my equipment would not do.  All I had was an 85/1.8, 35/2, and a D200.  No flash allowed.  I took the job, but did it for free... and requested that I had a better equiped friend to shoot with me.  The chapel ceilings were way high, light was dim and red... the D200 could not handle the low light.  Yes I boosted up the ISO, yes I shot wide open.  The Composition was great, the bokeh, the DoF, everything was great except for the noise and colours.  Skill is one thing, but people will still complain about how your photo LOOKS if it's too grainy and has weird colours... 

3. Beginners think Pros claim that you need top equipment to be good.  

That's not true.  The pros are saying that you need good equipment to get the shot you want WITHOUT flaws.  If you're shooting a wedding with a kit lens, your Bokeh is NOT going to be as good as if you shot with a 70-200.  Your DoF might be the same, but your bokeh is not.  The noise you get on your crop body is going to be worse than on your full frame body.  Crop sensors are mighty good at handling noise nowadays, but they will NOT match up with full frame bodies.  I could go on, but I know people will gonna bash, say how they can get the same shot with a kit lens and a flash.  

I know everyone can get a well composed shot with their kit lenses, but to have it nearly technically flawless... that's a different story.  But you all have your own opinion of "flawless".  Argue away :]


----------



## Ajlista (Jan 2, 2011)

amanda0908 said:


> Wow...this entire forum is full of a bunch of egotistical jackasses that think they are God's gift to photography. Not sure why everyone jumps everyone's case around here, this is, afterall, a BEGINNER'S forum, so if you are so magnificent, why don't you wander your way out of the beginner forum. A lot of people get on these forums to learn, not to read what some jackass that takes mediocre pictures and works at the Wal-Mart photo studio thinks. Clearly not many people on here shoot weddings because of their lack of ability and people skills. My opinion is that everyone on this forum (with a few exceptions) is so rude because they are completely worried that they aren't very good and someone with actual talent might someday swoop in and snag what few clients they may have.



"Gods gift"
I dont get it? Lol did god create the first camera?... Lol dont get too carried away there.
With the whole thing on trying to insult people btw, by telling them about their jobs, and mediocre photography.. you suck at it 
And if you hate the forum so much.. leave? Lol kthx 
Bye


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 2, 2011)

amanda0908 said:


> reznap said:
> 
> 
> > Well... three things factor in to this equation I think.
> ...



Wow, this is the post that got you all upset?
Really?


----------



## reznap (Jan 2, 2011)

:smileys:


----------



## amanda0908 (Jan 2, 2011)

Ajlista said:


> amanda0908 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...this entire forum is full of a bunch of egotistical jackasses that think they are God's gift to photography. Not sure why everyone jumps everyone's case around here, this is, afterall, a BEGINNER'S forum, so if you are so magnificent, why don't you wander your way out of the beginner forum. A lot of people get on these forums to learn, not to read what some jackass that takes mediocre pictures and works at the Wal-Mart photo studio thinks. Clearly not many people on here shoot weddings because of their lack of ability and people skills. My opinion is that everyone on this forum (with a few exceptions) is so rude because they are completely worried that they aren't very good and someone with actual talent might someday swoop in and snag what few clients they may have.
> ...


 

I may suck, but so do most of the people on here, and I'm sure you're among them. You're a dumbass.


----------



## nonamexx (Jan 2, 2011)

I want to write the next best-selling novel. What pen should I buy?

I think the quality of ink will make a difference to the final output.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 2, 2011)

amanda0908 said:


> Ajlista said:
> 
> 
> > amanda0908 said:
> ...



You haven't been here long enough to judge "most" of the members photography. I see who the dumbass really is.


----------



## Ajlista (Jan 2, 2011)

amanda0908 said:


> Ajlista said:
> 
> 
> > amanda0908 said:
> ...



LOL did i tell you that you suck at photography and life? I dont think so, haha your really bad at this
No go ahead tell me a joke about how much i fail at life, or how the doctor told me something that would change my life, like something wrong with my crotch 
Have fun:thumbup:


----------



## amanda0908 (Jan 2, 2011)

Ajlista said:


> amanda0908 said:
> 
> 
> > Ajlista said:
> ...


 lol...yep...you're still a dumbass.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 2, 2011)

Wedding *'photag'*, anyone else see the irony in the author of that calling everyone else a dumbass?


----------



## Ajlista (Jan 2, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> Wedding *'photag'*, anyone else see the irony in the author of that calling everyone else a dumbass?



AHAHA i didnt notice this! Thankyou! : )


----------



## twoboysnmygirl (Jan 2, 2011)

Yes, at least erose and I have something to read when the insomnia hits!  Although it's getting a little tiring.  Hey, that's the solution, maybe it will put me back to sleep!


----------



## usayit (Jan 2, 2011)

amanda0908 said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Understood... but there is one fatal flaw in your assessment.
> ...



Whatever you say.

What's the point of starting a thread of discussion with a closed mind.  Since you obviously have all the answers.  Good luck with that.


----------



## JAFO28 (Jan 2, 2011)

Just saying hi before this one gets closed.


----------



## sobolik (Jan 2, 2011)

PatrickCheung said:


> I've learned a few things through reading these wedding photography threads.
> 
> 1. Beginners like to believe that it's not about the equipment, but the photogapher's skill.
> 
> ...



("but to have it nearly technically flawless")

Hi genious,   Bokeh is the result of  a flaw in the lens. So all your ranting is that you prefer certain  lenses flaws over other another lens's flaws.   Nikon Lens Bokeh Comparison

("not DoF, Sobolik, no need for that DoF calculator") 
I think it is PatrickCheung;2117177 that needs to unconfuse himself not me.
("The pros are saying that you need good equipment to get the shot you  want WITHOUT flaws.  If you're shooting a wedding with a kit lens, your  Bokeh is NOT going to be as good as if you shot with a 70-200.  ")
Again, Bokeh is the result of  a flaw in the lens.

"[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Mathematicians would say             the intensity distribution of the blur circles are rectangular in             perfect lenses, and good bokeh would prefer a Gaussian distribution.             This is one area in which physics doesn't mirror what we want artistically. [/FONT]         
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Differing            amounts of spherical aberration alter how lenses render out-of-focus             points of light, and thus their bokeh. [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The word "bokeh" comes            from the Japanese word "boke" (pronounced bo-keh) which literally           means fuzziness or dizziness.[/FONT]​ 
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]A            technically perfect lens has no spherical aberration."[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]​Bokeh


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of course people genuinely  concerned about bokeh shoot f/2.8 or faster lenses. Newspaper  photographers and weekend pros all own some kind of 80-200 f/2.8 lens,  and pro fashion photographers  love 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8 lenses. Thus I also set my 80-200 AFS to f/2.8 in the same comparison, as well as at f/5.6. 
Nikon Lens Bokeh Comparison
[/FONT]

(" Can a kit lens give you the same bokeh (not DoF, Sobolik, no need for  that DoF calculator) as a High power, fast zoom or a fast prime?")

Maybe it has the same "feel" if the following effects turn you on then I guess your bokeh is just fine with a kit lens.

In photography, the term *bokeh*   represents the quality of the magical out-of-focus blur that makes it   look like the subject is isolated from the background. It is visually   appealing for us to see a photograph with a soft, creamy and beautiful   background. It helps concentrate our eyes on a single area and creates a   sense of depth and dimension on an otherwise flat-looking image.
Let me share a few tips on how you could obtain maximum bokeh from your camera setup.
*1) Use a large aperture*

Bokeh is not created by the camera &#8211; it is your lens and  its optics  that are responsible for rendering the out-of-focus areas.  Therefore,  the first thing you should do is set your lens aperture to its lowest value, also known as &#8220;maximum aperture&#8221;. You can do this by changing your camera mode to &#8220;Aperture Priority&#8221; and setting the &#8220;f&#8221; number to the lowest value your camera will permit. On Nikon DSLR cameras, this is typically done by rotating the front dial towards the left (counter-clockwise).
What is the effect of lowering the lens aperture? It basically decreases the depth of field (which is the area that appears sharp relative to the background) to a very small or &#8220;shallow&#8221; area.
*2) Minimize the distance between yourself and the subject*

The closer you stand to your subject, the blurrier the  background  will get. This happens because when an object is very close,  the lens  will focus closer and the depth of field will be the  smallest. It works  the same way with our eyes &#8211; try to extend your  index finger close to an  object two feet away from you, then focus your  eyes on your finger and  start moving it towards your eyes. You will  notice that as you get  closer to your eyes, the object behind your  finger will get blurrier and  blurrier every time. Lenses work exactly  the same way, which is why  subject distance plays a big role in  rendering of the bokeh.
*3) Increase the distance between your subject and the background*

If the subject you are photographing is very close to a  busy  background, the bokeh will definitely suffer. Remember, depth of  field  is not just a hard line after which everything is supposed to be   completely out of focus &#8211; it gradually transforms from sharp to out of   focus, as can be clearly seen in the below image. Therefore, in order  to  get a pleasant-looking bokeh, you should try to put your subject  away  from close background objects. For example, if you are taking a  portrait  of a girl that is standing very close to a tree branch with  leaves,  those leaves might not look completely out of focus. If the  girl moved  closer to you and thus increased the distance between  herself and the  tree branch, the leaves would look more &#8220;out-of-focus&#8221;.



As you can see in the above image, the nearest leaves on  the tree  look sharp and in focus, while the ones a little behind on  the left-hand  side look somewhat blurry. In comparison, the leaves from  the other  trees further away look completely out of focus.
*4) Use longer focal lengths*

Given that the distance between the camera and the  subject remains  the same, increasing the focal length of the lens  decreases the depth of  field. So, if you have a zoom lens, you should  zoom in to the maximum  focal length your lens allows to separate the  subject from the  background even more. This also means that if you zoom  out and use the  lens at its shortest focal length, the depth of field  will increase,  which is desirable for landscape and architectural  photography.
For example, if you have a 70-300mm zoom lens, shooting  at 300mm  focal length will isolate the subject the most (which is what  you want  for the best-looking bokeh), while shooting at 70mm will bring  more  objects in the background to focus.
*5) Use a long lens*

Since increasing the focal length means decreasing the  depth of  field, the longer your lens is, the better the bokeh you will  get. This  is not necessarily always true, because the rendering of  out-of-focus  areas also heavily depends on the optics of the lens. For  example, both Nikon 18-200mm and Nikon 70-200mm   have the same long focal lengths (200mm). However, the Nikon 70-200mm   has much better optics than the 18-200, which is why it has   exceptionally beautiful bokeh when compared to the 18-200 bokeh. So,   when I say &#8220;use a long lens&#8221;, I mean &#8220;use a high quality quality long   lens&#8221; 
*6) Use a fast lens*

And last, but not least, use the fastest lens you have,  since  aperture impacts the depth of field. The best lenses for  beautiful bokeh  are portrait lenses such as Nikon 50mm f/1.4, Nikon 85mm f/1.4 and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 that have large maximum apertures and highly optimized optics for portraiture. The cheaper alternatives such as Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and Nikon 85mm f/1.8 also produce great bokeh.

How to Obtain Maximum Bokeh


----------



## Phil Holland (Jan 2, 2011)

Here is what I have in my camera bag.


----------



## flea77 (Jan 2, 2011)

sobolik said:


> Hi genious, *Bokeh is the result of a flaw in the lens*. So all your ranting is that you prefer certain lenses flaws over other another lens's flaws. Nikon Lens Bokeh Comparison


 
Really? Because you quoted the following link:



sobolik said:


> Bokeh


 
and even quote sentences out of that link such as: 



sobolik said:


> Mathematicians would say the intensity distribution of the blur circles are rectangular in perfect lenses, and good bokeh would prefer a Gaussian distribution. This is one area in which physics doesn't mirror what we want artistically.


 
But you conveniently left out a sentence in the same paragraph right before the one you quoted, it reads:



> Perfect lenses render out-of-focus points of light as circles with sharp edges.




Rendering the out-of-focus areas is bokeh, and bokeh is a flaw in the lens according to you, so how can a lens be perfect, yet have a flaw? 

I opened up the links you provided and did a search for the word "flaw" and got no results at all. Where did you get the idea that bokeh is a flaw? Time and again those articles say that bokeh is how a lens renders the out of focus areas, but never do they say it is a flaw.

I would like to make two suggestions for you:

1) Before you call someone a "genious" you learn to spell the word genius
2) Before you act all smug and call people "genious" or genius, you actually read the articles you are quoting from, it will help you look less....ummmm.... like a newbie with no clue what they are talking about.

Allan


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 2, 2011)

I'm starting to think this person is someone's alter ego.


----------



## flea77 (Jan 2, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> I'm starting to think this person is someone's alter ego.


 
From what I have seen in this thread, right down to having to explain your awesome sig (which I may steal, just so you know), I am not sure they are smart enough to have an alter ego 

Allan


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 2, 2011)




----------



## flea77 (Jan 2, 2011)

harishankar said:


> I want to write the next best-selling novel. What pen should I buy?
> 
> I think the quality of ink will make a difference to the final output.


 
I would suggest a Mont Blanc 146 or Pelikan 800, either with a fine to extra fine nib.

As for ink, I like Mont Blanc blue-black. It is a true iron gall ink so should stand the test of time quite well. 

Next we need to talk paper, but you did not actually ask so you may have some in mind. I like Clairfontaine personally.

Allan

PS. Weren't expecting a serious answer to that now were you? :lmao:


----------



## gsgary (Jan 2, 2011)

sharp edged boken Canon 200F2.8 @F2.8 try that with your kit lens,  the bloke dosn't have a clue 






Canon 300F2.8


----------



## sobolik (Jan 2, 2011)

I say the average beginner asking about lenses on this forum has very little interest in edge sharpness for example nor will they or their audience ever care. Same with the flaw called "good" bokeh

"The rendering of out-of-focus points by a camera lens is called "bokeh"  and it is commonly ignored by lens users and lens designers for the  simple reason that

 "good bokeh" (the images on the right)  is created by _imperfect_  lenses, or lenses that exhibit "spherical aberration".   {see link for images -dots}

 A technically  perfect lens (corrected spherical aberration) will render points evenly,  thus causing the images on the left. {not good or bad neutral bokeh}

Most lenses will exhibit this  "neutral" bokeh...."
Bokeh - the least understood lens property | Andre Gunther Photography


----------



## bbprincess2147 (Jan 2, 2011)

KmH said:


> amanda0908 said:
> 
> 
> > .....bare minimum- to do a wedding......
> ...



Now, that certainly is bare minimum.


----------



## bbprincess2147 (Jan 2, 2011)

cdino88 said:


> Welcome to the forums!
> 
> I have seen many wedding photographers only carry around only one camera body, but it certainly does not hurt to have a backup camera/battery/memory card.
> 
> ...


I found this information really helpful!


----------



## sobolik (Jan 2, 2011)

gsgary said:


> sharp edged boken Canon 200F2.8 @F2.8 try that with your kit lens,  the bloke dosn't have a clue
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The 2.8 has been used to condemn kit lens bokeh and is now used here to condemn a kit lens claiming  "sharp edged boken".

The interesting thing is that this shot of a runner is a great example of terrible bokeh.  TERRIBLE BOKEH

Right click and copy the photo. Open it in software and enlage the lights in the upper background and compare to this link 1/2 way down the page.  Actually the naked eye unenlarged is good enough. Particularly about the runners right shoulder (our left)
Bokeh


----------



## nonamexx (Jan 2, 2011)

The above doesn't count as bokeh in my view. It's just a weakly out of focus background.

I've managed that with my humble P & S though the background blur is slightly less and actually looks more pleasing.

People here seem to place undue interest and value in bokehs. I actually think that bokehs are over-rated and most of the bokehs are crap. It takes an artist's eye to create a good bokeh. And even the best lens cannot choose the correct composition for you.


----------



## PatrickCheung (Jan 2, 2011)

sobolik said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > sharp edged boken Canon 200F2.8 @F2.8 try that with your kit lens,  the bloke dosn't have a clue
> ...



At least he's posting photos.  Get the best bokeh with your kit lens and post it up here.  If you can do better than the 2.8 then you win!  

Not the best Sharp-Edge-Free bokeh, but hey, better than nothing.  

From the 35/2:





From the 85/1.8:





From the 80-200/2.8:










If your kit lens can do better, please post.  You seem to be all talk.  You also seem to pick at certain aspects of arguments instead of arguing the whole topic.  I'm starting to think your ego is a bit too big for this forum, or you're just trying to pick fights because you dont have the money to spend on equipment.  You dont seem to be helping any beginner here.  






Droopy Camel laughs at you.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 2, 2011)

PatrickCheung said:


> You dont seem to be helping any beginner here.


Shirley, you jest.


----------



## OrionsByte (Jan 2, 2011)

Until I joined this forum, I never knew a simple word like "bokeh" could make me have an aneurism every time I read it. The word's only been in use for a decade and yet people toss it about it like it's the most important thing in photography, or like it's the only word that's ever been used to describe selective focus. 

Bah, I say.


----------



## PatrickCheung (Jan 2, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> PatrickCheung said:
> 
> 
> > You dont seem to be helping any beginner here.
> ...



I like you!


----------



## flea77 (Jan 3, 2011)

Oh boy. We pick apart your quotes to Ken Rockwell, you find someone else to quote. Funny thing is I don't think you ever really read what is said, you just yank parts out and go to it. So here we go again....



sobolik said:


> I say the average beginner asking about lenses on this forum has very little interest in edge sharpness for example nor will they or their audience ever care.


 
I agree, but for the millionth time, to which you never respond, this thread is not about beginners, it is about someone who is getting paid "MAJOR money" to shoot a wedding. *Please understand that.*




sobolik said:


> Same with the flaw called "good" bokeh


 
Again with the bokeh is a flaw comments. Where, exactly where, does it say that it is a flaw?

I am going to over simplify this so hopefully it will make sense to you. If you want the real story, go take some physics classes.

In order to get an image on the focal plane (sensor or film), light passes through some kind of hole (as in a pinhole camera) and creates an inverted image on the opposite side of the hole. This works pretty well and gets pretty much everything in focus at once. There are however a couple of problems.

1) Since the hole is very small, very long exposures are required.
2) To change the image (get an object larger or smaller on the film or sensor) you have to move the hole forward or backwards by quite a large distance. 
3) Controlling the image can be very difficult since you can not use too wide an angle and still have room for a shutter, film transport (or digital equipment), etc.

To solve these problems lenses were introduced. Unfortunately, even though the lenses fixed all of the above problems (much larger hole so faster exposures, 300mm lenses can be 5" long instead of 12", wide angle lenses are very possible) now we have a new problem, focusing.

For this next part, I am going to ignore convergance, divergance, difraction, and some other problems with light traveling through several glass elements, coatings, bouncing around in tubes, etc, even though they have tangable and real effects, they are not needed to understand where this is going.

The reason focusing is an issue is that as light travels through different parts of the glass it actually travels different distances and that has to be corrected. That is not an issue when you are talking about a pinhole that might be 1mm or less. It is a huge issue when you are talking about 30mm or more.The better corrected, the better the lens, the more expensive the lens.

Now an object at one distance will be different than an object at another distance. Think of it like a building in the distance. Although you can see the top and bottom of the 100 story building, the light traveling from the top takes a much longer path to get to you than the light traveling from the bottom. You can place a coke bottle on the table in front of you and although it appears the same size as the building in the distance, it is much closer so the light from the top of the bottle and light from the bottom of the bottle are much closer to the same length than it is for the building.

So in order to get the benefits, you have to deal with only some things being in focus. This is OK because that is how we precieve things anyway. Our brains relate to this very well so it is a non-issue. Images with close and distant objects all in focus at the same time seem disturbing, too busy and surreal anyway as a general rule.

So, if only certain things can be in focus at one time, other things must be out of focus. This is understood, it is part of physics, it is not a flaw, it is a design decision based on what we want to achieve. 

The visual qualities or attibutes of the areas that are not in focus is called bokeh. Yes, this area is caused by a misalignment of the lenses in relation to the area in question, but it is not a flaw, it is by design, it is intentional. It can be controlled and achieved in different ways, one of which is spherical abberation. You can increase or decrease spherical abberations in the in-focus area, out-of-focus area, both or neither, and you can do it partially, totally, or not at all.

Now lenses can be taylored to specific uses, and to specific attributes. Some lenses are taylored so that the bokeh is considered more pleasing. If you think lens manufacturer's ignore bokeh why did Nikon produce two DC lenses (DC stands for Defocus Control, they allow user modification of the area that is not in focus, in other words change the bokeh)? Why does Nikon also produce the 85mm 1.4 which is specifically sold and marketed as a portrait lens know for it's outstanding bokeh?

Get it?

Allan

I'm on an international photography forum and I am having to explain the basics of photography to someone, arg! I'm going to bed.


----------



## nonamexx (Jan 3, 2011)

Allan, sorry I understand the physics lesson, but I don't get the big deal with bokehs anway. Technically you might be correct in many ways, but photography is not just science, it's also art.

Photographs can be pleasing in very many different ways than just one object being in focus and the other being out of focus. Your simplistic view that bokehs produce pleasing effects is just an opinion.

In fact I would say the most interesting photographs are those where there are many elements of interest - not just a single subject. That is my opinion and is as valid as yours.

Bokehs are over-rated.

But whatever, if you want to spend your money on getting a "better" bokeh, whatever that might mean, it's your money to spend.

Assuming the "physics lecturer" attitude here isn't a big deal. Lots of us studied that at basic physics in school. Some of us might not remember it all that well. What's the point of being condescending to others?


----------



## eric-holmes (Jan 3, 2011)

How have I missed this???


----------



## enzodm (Jan 3, 2011)

harishankar said:


> Allan, sorry I understand the physics lesson, but I don't get the big deal with bokehs anway. Technically you might be correct in many ways, but photography is not just science, it's also art.



bokeh, in fact, is just matter of "art". Or, better, craft.


----------



## enzodm (Jan 3, 2011)

harishankar said:


> I want to write the next best-selling novel. What pen should I buy?
> 
> I think the quality of ink will make a difference to the final output.



This is a romantic analogy, it sounds well, but unfortunately is not much realistic. 
The matter of which is made a novel is _language_, not ink. In fact, you may use a pen, you can use a computer, you can dictate it to your secretary: the novel will be the same. You may compare the pen to which finger to use to shoot the button on the camera. You can use a thumb on a remote, auto-shoot or so.

On the other side, if you go with a slightly closer analogy, you may ask whether using just a 200-words dictionary is sufficient to write a novel, or using an alphabet missing letters "d", "s", "l", "r". The answer is "yes, if you know what you are doing, i.e. that you are using limited resources". In fact, a french writer wrote an entire book avoiding to use the most used letter in French (excellent exercise). 
If you are learning, 200 words is not bad; when you start missing expressive tools, you'll do next step, i.e., you learn and start using other words. But if you always use a 200-words dictionary because you are lazy, you will end up with a boring piece of writing. 
(all the people here is convinced a beginner should just use kit lenses until they find their limitations, and even sobolik is convinced that kit lenses are not sufficient for all needs - just search for what he is using for shooting).


----------



## nonamexx (Jan 3, 2011)

enzodm said:


> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> > I want to write the next best-selling novel. What pen should I buy?
> ...



My analogy is spot on. The lens is just a tool, just like the pen is a tool. In a novel the words may be the product and in photography the composition and the subject and the final picture is what really matters. If you get a good picture, who cares what lens or camera you used? I've seen some top photography by amatuers using P & S cameras simply because of the subject matter and the composition. 

You're looking at the pixels, I look at the full picture as a work in itself.

You can tell the SAME story with any pen just like you can take the same picture with any lens. 

If you're saying that a better lens will make a qualitative difference to the technical aspects, I agree, but if the composition is great, I care a damn about a few pixels here and there. And even minor technical shortcomings can be overcome by "post-processing". Using freely available digital processing techniques using tools like GIMP you can even fake a bokeh effect without much difference between "real" bokeh. 

Whether bokeh is art or not is still subjective and qualitative. I see it as a blobs of non-detailed spherical blur that a 3-year old kid with a crayon can reproduce. Any accomplished digital artist can create "bokeh" in 3 minutes with free software and no expensive equipment.

I don't think the bokeh makes a final difference to the "story". And since you can even fake a bokeh cheaply using software if that is what you like, I think the point about the lens is moot.

I am not denying the role of technology and the limitations it overcomes in many other situations (like low light, fast moving action, quick response) etc. But with a bit of creativity you can surprisingly maximize the existing limitations. And throwing money at every problem you encounter seems such a waste.


----------



## enzodm (Jan 3, 2011)

harishankar said:


> You can tell the SAME story with any pen just like you can take the same picture with any lens.



No. You can take good pictures with any lens, but not the same pictures. Simply consider longer focal lengths. You can walk to simulate (but again, perspective change) but sometimes you cannot. The lens is not the pen, is the eye of the writer.



harishankar said:


> If you're saying that a better lens will make a qualitative difference to the technical aspects, I agree, but if the composition is great, I care a damn about a few pixels here and there.



I do not have expensive lenses, and I too do not care much about pixels, mostly because my largest prints are 20x30cm (8"x12"). The difference is that your composition is 2D, mine tends to be 3D, like the world. Position of items in a picture is not only on the two main axes, third is given by perspective and out of focus areas.



harishankar said:


> And even minor technical shortcomings can be overcome by "post-processing". Some digital software filters are so good you can even fake a bokeh effect without much difference.



Photoshop costs like a good lens. GIMP at present is not as practical, although I use it sometimes (and I work with computers, so I'm not so picky on software).



harishankar said:


> Whether bokeh is art or not is still subjective and qualitative. I don't think the bokeh makes a final difference to the "story".


Bokeh is art in the sense that its appreciation is not matter of science. Anyway, again is matter of 2D vs. 3D. As you always shot with a P&S you never exercised with shallow DoF, so it is easy to tell it does not matter. I went to dSLR because I was limited in that. 



harishankar said:


> I am not denying the role of technology and the limitations it overcomes in many situations (like low light, fast moving action) etc. But with a bit of creativity you can surprisingly maximize the existing limitations. And throwing money at every problem you encounter seems such a waste.


You are glorifying the role of technology, since you think all can be cared with (expensive) software. 
For the rest, is exactly what I told. If you know existing limitations, you can do a good work. Different from what you can do with other lenses. And bokeh is not only matter of spending: when I need shallow DoF I use a 40 lens (with some quality issue on other compartments, but since I do not have pro expectations, I do not have people trusting me for unrepeatable shots, nor I print on large, it is not a problem for me).


----------



## nonamexx (Jan 3, 2011)

enzodm said:


> No. You can take good pictures with any lens, but not the same pictures. Simply consider longer focal lengths. You can walk to simulate (but again, perspective change) but sometimes you cannot. The lens is not the pen, is the eye of the writer.



I talked about when the composition is the same. 



enzodm said:


> I do not have expensive lenses, and I too do not care much about pixels, mostly because my largest prints are 20x30cm (8"x12"). The difference is that your composition is 2D, mine tends to be 3D, like the world. Position of items in a picture is not only on the two main axes, third is given by perspective and out of focus areas.



I have no doubt that the depth of field is very useful and interesting study to many people. I simply don't find it interesting enough.



enzodm said:


> Photoshop costs like a good lens. GIMP at present is not as practical, although I use it sometimes (and I work with computers, so I'm not so picky on software).



I use GIMP exclusively and it's quite good. Give it a go some time, especially with additional plugins from the community.



enzodm said:


> For the rest, is exactly what I told. If you know existing limitations, you can do a good work. Different from what you can do with other lenses. And bokeh is not only matter of spending: when I need shallow DoF I use a 40&#8364; lens (with some quality issue on other compartments, but since I do not have pro expectations, I do not have people trusting me for unrepeatable shots, nor I print on large, it is not a problem for me).



I didn't glorify technology either. I actually state that the final product - once executed - is technology neutral - in that it doesn't matter what was used to create it.

As to cost, whenever you keep adding a new equipment to your photography arsenal, even a small amount, it is an additional cost is it not?

As I said, I have made my point. In the end, my philosophy is slightly different from yours and I respect that.


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Jan 3, 2011)

Hm.


----------



## enzodm (Jan 3, 2011)

harishankar said:


> I talked about when the composition is the same.



Composition can be the same only if you start from the most limiting lens. So, you can tell just some stories.



harishankar said:


> As to cost, whenever you keep adding a new equipment to your photography arsenal, even a small amount, it is an additional cost is it not?



Any hour spent with software to artificially recreate blurring or so is a cost too. Learning how to do it well is... 20 hours? The cost of a decent lens for me, at my current hourly salary. Actually, I do not want to spend on both sides .


----------



## flea77 (Jan 3, 2011)

harishankar said:


> Allan, sorry I understand the physics lesson, but I don't get the big deal with bokehs anway. Technically you might be correct in many ways, but photography is not just science, it's also art.


 
I agree.



harishankar said:


> Photographs can be pleasing in very many different ways than just one object being in focus and the other being out of focus. Your simplistic view that bokehs produce pleasing effects is just an opinion.


 
I never said bokeh produced please effects. I said some lenses are taylored so that the bokeh is considered more pleasing. Please do not refer to my view as simplistic when you do not know what my view is in the first place.



harishankar said:


> In fact I would say the most interesting photographs are those where there are many elements of interest - not just a single subject. That is my opinion and is as valid as yours.


 
I also never said that photographs with just a single subject were more interesting or more pleasing. While your opinion is indeed just as valid as mine, you might want to actually know what my opinion is before jumping on it. 



harishankar said:


> Bokehs are over-rated.


 
I agree.



harishankar said:


> But whatever, if you want to spend your money on getting a "better" bokeh, whatever that might mean, it's your money to spend.


 
I very much appreciate your permission to spend my money however I want, but not once have I suggested that someone buy a lens for better bokeh. Now in a different thread I have said that bokeh is one of many factors to consider in purchasing a new lens. If someone were to buy a lens for professional use, or just for portrait use, where I feel bokeh can be important, I might suggest bokeh be taken into account when selecting a lens, but never as a single factor in lens determination. Are you suggesting that bokeh be completely ignored in all respects when purchasing a new lens?

Did you actually read the entire thread before posting?

Allan


----------



## Dao (Jan 3, 2011)

harishankar said:


> My analogy is spot on. The lens is just a tool, just like the pen is a tool. In a novel the words may be the product and in photography the composition and the subject and the final picture is what really matters. If you get a good picture, who cares what lens or camera you used? I've seen some top photography by amatuers using P & S cameras simply because of the subject matter and the composition.




Pen is one of the tools for writing a book.  However, in photography it is a little bit different.  You need the right tool to do the right job.  A hammer, wood and some nails, you got a table and chair.  But I will rather live in a house that build with experienced people with the right tool.   Of course, if we just talk about very very basic house.  Sure, it can be done.  (no plumbing work nor electrical work etc.)


Will a $50 point and shoot digital camera with video feature able to produce a movie?  Sure, it is highly possible.  But that movie will be limited.

Back to photography.  Can you use a basic slr camera with very basic lens to produce photos?  Of course the answer is yes.   But the basic camera and basic lens have limitations.  Certain type of photos maybe hard to do with that setup.  Again, use the right tool for the right job.   

As for the question regarding Wedding photography gear.  It is not the gear.  It is the photographer.  It is because the wedding photographer knows what he/she needs for his/her own photography style.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 3, 2011)

I seem to recall reading that there were serious and furious arguements among the learned cognoscendi about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin, back in the Middle Ages.  Doesn't seem that technology helped matters much.:meh:


----------



## flea77 (Jan 3, 2011)

pgriz said:


> I seem to recall reading that there were serious and furious arguements among the learned cognoscendi about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin, back in the Middle Ages. Doesn't seem that technology helped matters much.:meh:


 
I'm your huckleberry :mrgreen:

Since pins are scientifically measurable objects and angels are not, the answer is both 'an infinite number' and 'none' at the same time.

Allan


----------



## pgriz (Jan 3, 2011)




----------



## enzodm (Jan 3, 2011)

pgriz said:


> I seem to recall reading that there were serious and furious arguements among the learned cognoscendi about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin, back in the Middle Ages.  Doesn't seem that technology helped matters much.:meh:



It's just to heat up a little in there cold days


----------



## gsgary (Jan 3, 2011)

Well i'm selling all my L lenses because it has been proven that the kit lens is all you need, anyone know what the kit lens was for the 5D and 1Dmk2  so there will be 8 L lenses in the classified soon, one kit lens will do i can share it between my 5D and 1D's although i probably don't need 3 back up bodies


----------



## pgriz (Jan 3, 2011)

Umm, GsGary...  since you don't want to sell bad stuff, send it over and I'll test them for you.  After a year or so of testing, I'll let you know which one(s) are not worth anything and I'll take care of the disposal for you as well, gratis.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 3, 2011)

pgriz said:


> Umm, GsGary...  since you don't want to sell bad stuff, send it over and I'll test them for you.  After a year or so of testing, I'll let you know which one(s) are not worth anything and I'll take care of the disposal for you as well, gratis.



300mmF2.8L is my favourite, i hope i will be ok shooting cricket with the kit lens because i usually shoot at 600mm


----------



## pgriz (Jan 3, 2011)

gsgary said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > Umm, GsGary... since you don't want to sell bad stuff, send it over and I'll test them for you. After a year or so of testing, I'll let you know which one(s) are not worth anything and I'll take care of the disposal for you as well, gratis.
> ...


 
Yup, that one is definitely dangerous.  I'm sending you a padded box for you to dispose of the gear.  Remember, it's not the lens, it's the photographer.  Keep on repeating it until you really believe it.  Then send me the box.


----------



## Joshua_Lee (Jan 3, 2011)

Haha Some of you must walk on water while you are photographing. So many idealist on here. I think everyone should post a different photo of their work with each post. This way it would be easier to weed out the crap. Then again, you would always have the plagiarizers. 

Listen, if you have the talent to shoot a wedding then go for it. You and only you have to deal with the consequences of your work. As for equipment. I have seen people take better photos with a $700 camera kit, than those who had their fancy full frame cameras. It's the photographer not the gear.  Good Luck!


----------



## gsgary (Jan 3, 2011)

pgriz said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > pgriz said:
> ...



Had a look at some photos and changed my mind


----------



## flea77 (Jan 3, 2011)

gsgary said:


> Had a look at some photos and changed my mind


 
Nope, not allowed to change your mind! You could do that shot with a kit lens I bet!

Also, you should send your lenses to me instead of pgriz because he doesn't even know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! :lmao:

Allan


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 3, 2011)

Ahh, but you only got one image out of your photo... he could get 4-5 usable images out of a photo with a kit lens because he would have shot it much larger and crop it since he has a larger megapixel camera. Just think, you only captured the surfer - there were probably great white sharks, nursing mothers, baby seals and UFO's that you missed in this shot by using superior gear.

You = Lose


----------



## OrionsByte (Jan 3, 2011)

Joshua_Lee said:


> It's the photographer not the gear.  Good Luck!



Average gear + bad photographer = bad photos
Average gear + average photographer = decent photos
Best gear + average photographer = good photos
Best gear + best photographer = best photos

In my opinion, it's really not a gear _versus_ talent thing - it's a gear _plus_ talent thing, with a bias towards talent.

Best gear + bad photographer = bad photos.
Average gear + best photographer = good photos.

See?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 3, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> Ahh, but you only got one image out of your photo... he could get 4-5 usable images out of a photo with a kit lens because he would have shot it much larger and crop it since he has a larger megapixel camera. Just think, you only captured the surfer - there were probably great white sharks, nursing mothers, baby seals and UFO's that you missed in this shot by using superior gear.
> 
> You = Lose


 

The emoticon isn't big enough, so...


*ROFLMFAO!*


----------



## pgriz (Jan 3, 2011)

flea77 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Had a look at some photos and changed my mind
> ...


 
Pfft.  I know.  I just didn't want to prejudice your answers.  And GSGary, that's really terrible bokeh you've got there.  No, you deserve better.   Now, just let go of the box and give it to the postal service guy....




> Ahh, but you only got one image out of your photo... he could get 4-5 usable images out of a photo with a kit lens because he would have shot it much larger and crop it since he has a larger megapixel camera. Just think, you only captured the surfer - there were probably great white sharks, nursing mothers, baby seals and UFO's that you missed in this shot by using superior gear.
> 
> You = Lose


 
I used to get all those too, until someone pointed out the sensor needed cleaning...:er:


----------



## flea77 (Jan 3, 2011)

pgriz said:


> I used to get all those too, until someone pointed out the sensor needed cleaning...:er:


 
ROFLMAO! 

Allan


----------



## gsgary (Jan 3, 2011)

pgriz said:


> flea77 said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...




What do you expect from a 300F2.8L + 2x extender


----------



## mrpink (Jan 3, 2011)

Joshua_Lee said:


> I think everyone should post a different photo of their work with each post. This way it would be easier to weed out the crap.



Where is your photo to accompany this post? 








p!nK


----------



## sobolik (Jan 3, 2011)

flea77 said:


> Oh boy. We pick apart your quotes to Ken Rockwell, you find someone else to quote. Funny thing is I don't think you ever really read what is said, you just yank parts out and go to it. So here we go again....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"I agree, but for the millionth time, to which you never respond, this  thread is not about beginners, it is about someone who is getting paid  "MAJOR money" to shoot a wedding. *Please understand that."

*_ Flea you really are an annoying flea. Compare you ranting contentious big mouth  venom with the OP__The original post:
"_*Wedding Photag. Gear* 
 			 			 		  		 		 			 			I was hoping to get a little guidance on what gear to buy- bare  minimum- to do a wedding. And am I playing with fire if I dont have a  backup camera body? What lenses specifically do I need??"

--

_
It has been established that the flea has no idea what he is ranting about rather it appears to just be a person full of venom.

The"fake it till you make it" crowd like you seldom make it. They are too busty running the mouth to ever progress_*.
*_

flea you should just shut your venomous mouth and learn something.  Again compare the OP to your  false claims.

Another of the OP's posts

_"Wow...this entire forum is full of a bunch of egotistical jackasses that  think they are God's gift to photography. Not sure why everyone jumps  everyone's case around here, this is, afterall, a BEGINNER'S forum, so  if you are so magnificent, why don't you wander your way out of the  beginner forum. A lot of people get on these forums to learn, not to  read what some jackass that takes mediocre pictures and works at the  Wal-Mart photo studio thinks. Clearly not many people on here shoot  weddings because of their lack of ability and people skills. My opinion  is that everyone on this forum (with a few exceptions) is so rude  because they are completely worried that they aren't very good and  someone with actual talent might someday swoop in and snag what few  clients they may have."

Flea, pay attention and keep the mouth from running.


----------



## PatrickCheung (Jan 3, 2011)

sobolik said:


> flea77 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh boy. We pick apart your quotes to Ken Rockwell, you find someone else to quote. Funny thing is I don't think you ever really read what is said, you just yank parts out and go to it. So here we go again....
> ...



I see you have given up arguing about bokeh and kit lenses!


----------



## pgriz (Jan 3, 2011)

You know, guys, pissing contests are not the least bit entertaining or enlightening.  We come to these forums presumably to share in our enjoyment, to learn from others with experience, and to participate in advancing our understanding of our common interest.  When the dialogue swerves into invective and insult, it reveals little about the arguement, and much about the ones resorting to this.  

There are some who like to argue.  An arguement is a useful mechanism to present the various aspects of an issue and to debate the relative merits of each proposition.  However, once it descends into emotion and namecalling, then we have the witnessed the classic definition of a troll.  Internet Trolls talks about trolls and what they are and do.  So let's discuss and even argue, but argue with reason and with substance.  If we think a viewpoint has no merit, then let's discuss the viewpoint and its lack of merit.  Let us NOT start mudslinging.  I have no power (nor do I seek it) to make participants "play nice" but at the same time, it lessens whatever pleasure I get in participating, and rooms with a stink are soon deserted.

Ok, rant off.


----------



## nonamexx (Jan 3, 2011)

pgriz said:


> You know, guys, pissing contests are not the least bit entertaining or enlightening.  We come to these forums presumably to share in our enjoyment, to learn from others with experience, and to participate in advancing our understanding of our common interest.  When the dialogue swerves into invective and insult, it reveals little about the arguement, and much about the ones resorting to this.
> 
> There are some who like to argue.  An arguement is a useful mechanism to present the various aspects of an issue and to debate the relative merits of each proposition.  However, once it descends into emotion and namecalling, then we have the witnessed the classic definition of a troll.  Internet Trolls talks about trolls and what they are and do.  So let's discuss and even argue, but argue with reason and with substance.  If we think a viewpoint has no merit, then let's discuss the viewpoint and its lack of merit.  Let us NOT start mudslinging.  I have no power (nor do I seek it) to make participants "play nice" but at the same time, it lessens whatever pleasure I get in participating, and rooms with a stink are soon deserted.
> 
> Ok, rant off.



I think you make a good point and I would like to share my general thoughts on this, having been online and participating in forums for nearly 6-7 years. (haha.. I'm boasting)

There are several factors why such discussions, even though they start off decently end up invariably becoming slanging matches with lesser and lesser useful content and more and more abuse and invective (if you like).

I think people generally start off with hugely different expectations and come from such different backgrounds even though they might share one common interest. The argument part of it usually begins when one person states a point as completely factual and dismisses every other point of view as false.

Then again, the more knowledgeable people usually have what is called a slight intellectual arrogance (I can be accused of this myself, but I do try to control it). This makes them very difficult to convince (if anybody can be convinced) that some things that are presented as facts might just be opinions. This leads to more slanging.

Finally what happens is this. Invariably when such an argument gets circular and increasingly heated somebody makes a statement like: "your assertion or statement is stupid" and that is read as "you are stupid" and then abusing starts off.

One thing my experience has taught me is that people seldom "read" the conversation properly at a certain point of time. The eye tends to scan the posts quickly when you're emotional and you pick out parts that you interpret wrongly and get agitated and respond more heatedly. This leads to everybody getting upset and results in flaming.

My summary of why flaming becomes inevitable in highly subjective matters?

1. People take any attack on their opinion as a personal attack.
2. Some more knowledgeable and/or experienced people often present their opinion as undisputed facts.
3. Inevitably the issue becomes "for/against" and arguments become circular and repeated.
4. Somebody in frustration makes a statement like "your argument or statement is stupid" and this is interpreted as "you are stupid"
5. All round flaming starts until things cool down. This is the stage when people post quickly and heatedly and seldom "read" anything in response properly.

As a former forum admin and moderator, I've always felt it's better to stop discussions when it reaches point #4. It makes no sense to allow arguments to continue until the serious flaming stage is reached. At that point no useful content is added and people become more emotional and defensive.

In actuality this particular thread is no biggie. I actually find that people have been more restrained and more focussed on topic in spite of the inevitable clash of viewpoints. So I admire and understand your concerns and just thought I'd share something on this.


----------



## flea77 (Jan 3, 2011)

sobolik said:


> _Flea you really are an annoying flea. Compare you ranting contentious big mouth venom with the OP__The original post:_
> _"_*Wedding Photag. Gear*
> I was hoping to get a little guidance on what gear to buy- bare minimum- to do a wedding. And am I playing with fire if I dont have a backup camera body? What lenses specifically do I need??"
> 
> ...


 
Yep, you are correct. In the middle of the night I got two threads where you are posting drivel about lenses confused. The thread at http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...m-photo-gallery/229725-kit-lens-weddings.html is the one I was refering to where the OP was doing a wedding for "MAJOR money" as she stated in another post at http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...lery/228931-shooting-wedding-8-days-help.html when she stated:



SabrinaO said:


> I'm getting paid MAJOR money so I want the pics to be PERFECT because I never shot a wedding so I just need tips!


 
Both threads involve you proclaiming nonesense about lenses so they were easily confused. 

Regarding this thread, if you read the thread from the start you will see where I answer the OPs question (post #4) with a few questions and my bare minimum list. Things remain pretty much civil although she finds one post rude, right up until post #18 where someone makes some smart remoarks about having to purchase all the latest and greatest equipment.

Up to the post you made, no one suggested the latest and greatest (there was no mention of D3s or 1Ds at all). When you were called on this fact by heyjoe and ajkramer87 you stated you had no model reases for the wedding photos you have (that would imply you had no contract, what kind of wedding photographer would have no contract?!?!?!?) and that you basically wont post any of your pictures because you think everyone will dump on them because they don't like you (although I have no idea what could ever give you the impression you are not liked).

Once you get called out on that you divert the conversation to Light Artisan's signature line because you claim that attributing a quote about the internet to Abraham Lincoln was "presenting false information" and was "harmful" and "legally libel". This tactic worked because no one could possibly believe you were seriously calling that obvious attempt at humor as a libelous comment (Under US law I believe the plaintif (Lincoln) would have to prove that the information is false, which will be rather difficult since he is dead).

At this point you shift the conversation over to explaining that bokeh is a flaw and somehow that makes the kit lens on the same level as the pro lens, just with different flaws........

and on we go. Now, you once again avoid the meat of the conversation and would rather call me names. That is fine, it clearly shows you have no leg to stand on and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Thank you for your assistance 

Allan


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 3, 2011)

I need a bigger one of these:


----------



## flea77 (Jan 3, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I need a bigger one of these:


 
Ask and ye shall receive!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 3, 2011)

Perfect! Thanks, Venom McVenomson. 
Can I just call you Venny?


----------



## ghpham (Jan 3, 2011)

New Year....same ol' sh!t.....


----------



## eric-holmes (Jan 3, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I need a bigger one of these:



:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Joshua_Lee (Jan 4, 2011)

mrpink said:


> Joshua_Lee said:
> 
> 
> > I think everyone should post a different photo of their work with each post. This way it would be easier to weed out the crap.
> ...



Sorry, let me be more specific. If you are going to bust balls on here, back it up with work. Otherwise, shut the heck up!


----------



## usayit (Jan 4, 2011)

You guys should invest in one of these:

National Presto Industries, Inc.

Sure saved me a lot of $$$ over buying micro-bag-poppers.   Enough popcorn to keep up with the TPF.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 4, 2011)

Wow, this thread really happened?


----------



## Derrel (Jan 4, 2011)

ghpham said:


> New Year....same ol' sh!t.....


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## DerekSalem (Jan 4, 2011)

amanda0908 said:


> reznap said:
> 
> 
> > MissCream said:
> ...



If you had done weddings before then you wouldn't be asking people on this forum what you'd need...you'd realize fairly quickly what you're missing. You start to see a need for something you don't own, and you buy it. If you're asking for "bare minimum" then you don't have any idea what you need...which means you either don't have any experience shooting weddings or you don't understand your gear enough to *realize* what you need.

I'm not trying to be rude here, btw...but we get a *TON* of people on this site asking about how to shoot weddings and about 90% of the time they're not prepared at all and have no idea what it takes. On top of that, you get people saying terms like "bare minimum" which actually offends some of us. You're talking about being the single person to record an event in these peoples' lives. They're only going to do it once (pray to God) and you're the person they're paying to record it. Do you really want to only buy the "bare minimum" required to get the job done...or do you want to make sure their memories are preserved in the absolute best way possible?


----------



## DerekSalem (Jan 4, 2011)

gsgary said:


> Well i'm selling all my L lenses because it has been proven that the kit lens is all you need, anyone know what the kit lens was for the 5D and 1Dmk2  so there will be 8 L lenses in the classified soon, one kit lens will do i can share it between my 5D and 1D's although i probably don't need 3 back up bodies



lol I know it's all a joke but the kit lens for the 5D is the 24-105 f/4L IS lol the 1D series doesn't have kit lenses


----------



## gsgary (Jan 4, 2011)

DerekSalem said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Well i'm selling all my L lenses because it has been proven that the kit lens is all you need, anyone know what the kit lens was for the 5D and 1Dmk2  so there will be 8 L lenses in the classified soon, one kit lens will do i can share it between my 5D and 1D's although i probably don't need 3 back up bodies
> ...



Don't want that lens got the new 24-70F1.2  kit lens only cost £5000


----------



## sobolik (Jan 4, 2011)

DerekSalem said:


> amanda0908 said:
> 
> 
> > reznap said:
> ...


----------

