# Kit lens at a wedding?



## crowl31 (Jan 2, 2008)

I was at a wedding over the weekend and since i am getting into photography and have been on this site for a few months I went to see what kind of gear the photographer had only to be shocked to see she was using the same kit lens on her canon 20d as i had on my xti.

So i was wondering how many wedding photographers use a standards lens like that?  I haven't gotten to see her pictures yet but the venue was very low light so i expected to see something much more advanced to accomidate it.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 2, 2008)

Thread moved

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=95620


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 2, 2008)

> So i was wondering how many wedding photographers use a standards lens like that? I haven't gotten to see her pictures yet but the venue was very low light so i expected to see something much more advanced to accommodate it.


I would be equally as shocked (and appalled) to see a 'professional' wedding photographer using that lens.  It's a decent enough lens when stopped down and used in good lighting...but it's a poor choice for wedding photography.

As for what you were seeing...maybe she was just a friend or family member that was asked to shoot the wedding...rather than a hired professional.  As for how the photos turn out, hopefully good.  

Given the choice, I'd rather have a cheap kit in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing...than an expensive kit in the hands of someone who doesn't know.


----------



## skiboarder72 (Jan 2, 2008)

i use my kit lens at the weddings I shoot... but I also use my 50mm and zoom as well, they come out great as long as you know to stop it down and have good lighting


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 2, 2008)

For years, we (photographers) put so much crap in front of lenses to soften images, create a vignette, soften contrast, etc., it sometimes made me wonder why I invested so much in my lenses.

-Pete


----------



## elsaspet (Jan 2, 2008)

I'd be shocked too. I don't let assistants work with kit lenses ('ll give them one of mine to use) .....Unless you are outdoors in daylight, a kit lens simply won't work well.
While we might be working with blurs, overlays, vignettes, etc., it's always best to start with a nice crisp image.
But also keep in mind, pretty much everyone with a camera is a wedding photog these days. LOL, exaggeration of course, but it's the bane of many a pro. But even the pros had to start somewhere.

You should reserve your shock, and your pity, for the bride and groom. After all, they are the person who probably spent more on the cake than the photog. When the cake is gone, they will have several blurry photos of it, to remember it by. Hopefully, for their sake, this photographer was the exclusion to the rule.......


----------



## JIP (Jan 2, 2008)

One of the places I worked for sent me on a few weddings with a couple of people and the ones I did go with to a person carried slow lenses.  I was totally surprised but those people were the best photoraphers they had and they were excellent photographers not beginners they just did not have the gear.  Most of these people were at the time just transitioning from medium-format film to digital so they understood good gear but just did not have it with digital.  I know fast lenses get bandied about here as the end all be all even by me but you can produce excellent images with lesser gear. I am a big proponent of getting the right gear for the job but the people I have worked with have proved the "it's not the ear it's the photographer" right every time.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Jan 2, 2008)

The couple in question has committed a serious faux pas by having a photographer present who was using an unacceptable lens in full view of wedding patrons.  Heloise recommends politely declining further wedding invitations from this couple.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 3, 2008)

JIP said:


> "it's not the (g)ear, it's the photographer"...every time.



Absolutely.  Well stated.

-Pete


----------



## SwEetAbbOttMeOHmy (Jan 3, 2008)

I just shot a wedding for a family friend I only have my kit lens 18-55mm and my 55-200mm VR lens.  Most of the pic's I got with my 55-200mm but I had to use the other lens with some.  I thought they all turned out very beautiful and so did the bride and groom. I am learning and not a paid professional and they new that but they couldn't afford anything else (above free).  So sometimes it does depend on the Bride and Groom's finance.


----------



## dpolston (Jan 3, 2008)

I'll just have to ask in general... why is there such a hang up for the kit lenses? I realize that the glass and aps are lesser quality but as was mentioned, we usually over process the prints anyway. But what's your take on it? 

I think I just don't get the "appalled" comment. I have shot kit lenses with great product to show for it. I need the glass but I have to work myself into it. This "hobby of mine" is expencive.

(having said that, my kit lens broke. it hangs up zooming around 30mm)


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 3, 2008)

The kit lenses gets a lot of bad run on the internet.  I think that a lot of it has to do with how cheep it feels, rather than it's performance.  

That being said, if you had the opportunity to shoot with a top quality lens and a kit lens, and compared the photos...it would probably be very easy to tell which one was better.  Once you are opened up to the world of better glass...you don't ever want to go back.

One reason why people don't like the kit lenses...is because they are slow.  The max aperture is a limitation and they really are not at their best when used wide open anyway.  So to get the most out of it, you need to shoot at F8 or F11 etc.  In some situations, that's not a problem.  Even for weddings, you can just use more flash power.  Some people prefer to shoot this way because it gives them a deeper DOF.
On the other hand, shooting at smaller apertures in poor lighting, and using more flash...will give you less ambient (background) exposure.  
With high quality lenses, you may have a larger aperture, which means you can use less flash power and create a better balance between ambient and flash exposure.  Also, better quality lenses may not be as poor when wide open...so you can shoot at F2.8 or F4 and still have great quality.

Also, there is build quality.  As mentioned, someones kit lens broke...
A top quality lens can take a pretty good licking...and keep on ticking.  This is important when you are responsible for shooting a once in a life time event, like a wedding.

I don't know if anyone asked...but did the photographer in question have a backup camera/lens?  Shooting with a cheap lens is much less reprehensible than shooting without backup.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 3, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> Shooting with a cheap lens is much less reprehensible than shooting without backup.



Yet another bit of wisdom from Mike.  Thanks!

-Pete


----------



## elsaspet (Jan 3, 2008)

And just to add (I'm really not being a lens snob) :greenpbl:

I am the one who processes all the images that we shoot, which of course includes assistants.
When I open the photos in Light Room, I sort by capture time, and not by camera, so I see the photos side by side.

When we first started using assistants, they shot with what they brought. As they were just starting out, they often had kit lenses.

Now keep in mind, the kit lens photos were fine, as far as composition, emotion, and various other elements. Often though, they had to be cut.

The reason they were cut, was that they wouldn't "mesh" with the other photographs in terms of clarity, noise, sharpness etc. While they looked fine on their own, they could not stand up, and be cohesive with the faster lenses.

That is when I decided to pimp out my own lenses :lmao:. It wasn't that the camera or the photographer was having problems keeping up, it was the lenses. Once I started do that, the problems (clarity/sharpness/noise) totally disappeared.

So that is where I am coming from.....as a processor. The photograph's artistic merits were fine. That wasn't the point at all. Many were quite good in these aspects. It was the quality of the image (comparatively), not the image itself.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 3, 2008)

elsaspet said:


> And just to add (I'm really not being a lens snob) :greenpbl:



Oh, I think everyone here knows that.

The point I'm trying to make is:  I'd much rather have YOU shoot my daughter's wedding with a point 'n' shoot than some of the photographers in my area that are loaded for bear.


----------



## elsaspet (Jan 3, 2008)

Christie Photo said:


> Oh, I think everyone here knows that.
> 
> The point I'm trying to make is: I'd much rather have YOU shoot my daughter's wedding with a point 'n' shoot than some of the photographers in my area that are loaded for bear.


 
You are a sweetheart Pete. I've missed you! Thank you for being so kind.

Hey, David has a post below this one, asking about specific studio help. I told him you were the perfect man for the job.


----------



## Antithesis (Jan 3, 2008)

I did some backup shooting a while ago, and we were kinda short handed on gear, so I brought along my nikon 18-55. I ended up mostly using that and my 50mm, but shooting wide with the 18-55 with an sb-800 gave me a lot of good images. Keep in mind I was there for experience (unpaid) and shooting backup, but many of my images came out just as good as the paid professional. 

I think most pro's are pretty elitest when it comes to gear, but it's probably only because they own several thousand dollars worth of gear, whereas we, the amateur, do not. When making relatively small prints, the difference between the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 and the f2.8 is going to be pretty marginal. Probably unrecognizable to the average bride and groom.


----------



## elsaspet (Jan 3, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> I did some backup shooting a while ago, and we were kinda short handed on gear, so I brought along my nikon 18-55. I ended up mostly using that and my 50mm, but shooting wide with the 18-55 with an sb-800 gave me a lot of good images. Keep in mind I was there for experience (unpaid) and shooting backup, but many of my images came out just as good as the paid professional.
> 
> I think most pro's are pretty elitest when it comes to gear, but it's probably only because they own several thousand dollars worth of gear, whereas we, the amateur, do not. When making relatively small prints, the difference between the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 and the f2.8 is going to be pretty marginal. Probably unrecognizable to the average bride and groom.


 
I understand what you are saying, but I don't have the average bride and groom.   There isn't anything elitist IMO, about doing the best job I can for my clients.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 3, 2008)

I think that's the difference.  Some people are saying that it's OK to use a kit lens, or that they did and it was fine....but if you a trying to be a successful, top end wedding photography...you will use the best tool for the job.


----------



## Antithesis (Jan 3, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> I think that's the difference.  Some people are saying that it's OK to use a kit lens, or that they did and it was fine....but if you a trying to be a successful, top end wedding photography...you will use the best tool for the job.



I think if I were going to do it professionally, then yes, I would wait until I had top-end gear (just for reliability). I'm just suggesting that perhaps the photographer wasn't a professional or didn't yet have the funds for the $1100 18-55 f2.8 (edit: Canon... probably more than that).


----------



## elsaspet (Jan 3, 2008)

I hear ya antithesis, and yes, when you start out, many people don't have the money for that type of thing.
And there are brides out there willing to give up certain things for pricing that is more affordable to them.
I honestly understand that.

I post from my viewpoint now, but remember my beginnings as well.

My advice to anyone with a kit lens would be to put every penny you make back into your equipment.  You might not see the difference now, but you will.


----------



## rachlynn17 (Jan 4, 2008)

So, I'm new to the lens thing.  What exactly do I want to look for in a new lens?  And what will price range end up being?


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 4, 2008)

> So, I'm new to the lens thing. What exactly do I want to look for in a new lens? And what will price range end up being?


As mentioned, you _can_ shoot a wedding with just about any lens...but most people believe that a professional should use professional grade tools.

Firstly, I would suggest looking at lenses with a large maximum aperture.  For zoom lenses, that means F2.8.  This gives you the ability to use faster shutter speeds, which can mean sharper shots.  It also gives you the ability to use a shallower DOF.  
Typically, zoom lenses with a max aperture of F2.8 are also the top of the line lenses.  Most of Canon's top of the line lenses are designated with an L in the name.  24-70 F2.8 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS...for example.

Generally, an easy way to tell a lens's quality is by the price.  For example, a typical 'kit' lens might be around $100...and a typical 'top of the line' lens might be close to $1000.


----------



## nicfargo (Jan 4, 2008)

I agree that if you are charging for a job, and charging a decent amount, you need to have the best tools for the job.  A kit lens at a wedding that the photog charges 5k for (probably profits more then half that), is *appalling*.  However, a kit lens at a wedding where the photog is doing it probono...no problem there.  I think what is worst then the gear is when you see the technique and the lighting a photog is using and you just want to scream because you know the photos will disappoint the B&G.


----------

