frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Your 24-120 should be fine. If you have a second camera I would get the 35 millimeter 1.8 prime and stick it on the second camera or get it and swap lenses which takes time. You do not want to swap if you can help it, especially during the ceremony. You really need a second camera. I would rent one like the one you have and are familiar with. The 70-200 is a great lens you can get it now or get it later, it's a good portrait lens it's a good all-around lens, but for this wedding I don't think so, I think you're good to go, shooting at wider lens opening,

Mongo Loc: Western New York

I shot a couple of dozen weddings in the 70's using MF and 35mm. The MF was for the group shots and formal poses and the 35mm was for candids. I would shoot 150 to 300 snaps, and the customer would get 15 to 30 pictures in a book, along with what ever other shots they wanted. With perhaps one exception, everyone was thrilled. They spent a kilobuck, in the 70's and I know many still have the photos today (because I sometimes run into them around town).

I also know that there are many unhappy campers who spent money on photos and did not get what they expected, or got nothing at all. That is very unfortunate.

I got out of it because I was young, single, and liked having my weekends free. The money was nice, but I was into technical aspects of photography, and the only real technical challenges were keeping the equipment running flawlessly, and managing the lighting.

Today the game is different. Hundreds of shots at weddings, and productivity is not measured by 15 to 30 choice shots, but by how many (hundreds) of shots were captured. The game is different, since Steve Sasson's invention.

For example, in sports photography, getting just a few usable shots per night back in the day of film was expected. Today, the expectations are almost two orders of magnitude higher, with some photographer's telling me their quota is 50 or higher.

The technology changes, and the standards of production also change.

Some of the iconic sports shots are carefully planned, and set up for in advance. Wedding shots also require planning, practice at setting up the poses, managing the lighting, the people, and so on.

Having an assistant is nearly essential, unless you are experienced. Having multiple cameras for different lens is very helpful. Having the flash setup that you will need to consistently make lighting work, if you are using flash, is important. Having access to the venue to plan your shots, get pre-ceremony shots, or pre-reception shots, or whatever (moonlight shots, drone shots, etc.) is important.

Back to the lens...I will amend my earlier comment saying that a 70-200 is very handy. Most of my wedding experience was with fast 50, 105 or 135, and a 28mm lens. Lenses are much better today, and the MTF of kit lens often surpass the MTF of lower cost primary lenses of 40 or 50 years ago. But success today requires that your equipment (including cables, battery packs, etc.) works flawlessly, that you have practiced your lighting and poses, that you have a plan for the event, and that you produce a large number of good shots. I would focus on the skills and the readiness rather than another lens. Unless you are shooting candids, and there are no expectations of your productivity.

Best luck to anyone taking on the challenge of wedding photography!

montephoto

Steve,

Like many here have said, do not take your nephew's wedding event as an opportunity to LEARN how to photograph a wedding. I have nothing against new people learning wedding photography but you need to learn from a pro, as an assistant at many, many weddings before you venture off to do it alone.

You have a nice camera and you have a flash. You are not sure of your lens. Equipment-wise, you have HALF of what you need. What if your D750 goes down or locks up? It happens! What if your flash stops working? It happens! You need back-up equipment for everything if you are going to photograph a wedding. Your questions are telling me that you are not ready for this experience if you are the main photographer.

If you are planning on being just a family person who wants to take photographs, then be my guest, but ask the professional FIRST if it is OK to shoot and when can you shoot. I had a clause in my wedding contract that told the Bride & Groom that "no other people may take photographs if they interfere with the official photographer (me) or if they consume the time of the Bride & Groom". I also showed them some of my past ceremony images where many people were standing up taking photographs or holding up their cells phones to take images. It is eye-opening to the Bride & Groom.

jdub82 Loc: Northern California

What a snarky, rude, and unhelpful response. He clearly stated this was a family wedding and he has already decided to do it.

jdub82 Loc: Northern California

I'm always amazed that whenever someone posts on this forum that they are shooting a family (or friend) wedding, and asks for advice, they get blasted because they are not a Professional Photographer. Who cares, it is a family wedding, and this person has been asked to take pictures, and ALREADY agreed to do so. Many seem to ignore the fact that many weddings take place without the services of a Professional. Some cannot afford to hire a Professional Photographer. My own wedding (34 years ago) was shot by my brother-in-law, who is a an amateur, because we couldn't afford a Professional at that time. He provided pictures that were more than acceptable to us. This is a very common scenario. Either answer the question of the OP, or leave him alone. Most amateur photographers already know that weddings are a real challenge. He isn't pretending to be a Professional, that's the reason he asked for advice.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Nothing rude at all... Just true facts, that the op should be aware of....to many people take on a venue like this and fail for all the reasons several responders have brought up, not to be rude, but to enlighten the op. He asked for help, and he is getting it......

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Dannj

[quote=jdub82]
“......Everyone who takes pictures knows that weddings are a challenge.....”

I agree about the overkill of advise offered but I don’t think you got this part right...many wedding guests don’t get it. There’s more to it than pushing a button.

jdub82 Loc: Northern California

[quote=Dannj]

You missed my point. When I said 'everyone who takes pictures' I meant an amateur or hobbiest photographer, and the majority of those who belong to UHH. I was not referring to the general public. Interestingly, for those who have read the whole thread, the OP stated that he has experience doing portrait work, so he is clearly not an inexperienced photographer.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

He is not being “blasted”, he is being warned/informed, and correctly so. Those that have shot weddings and understand the challenges and responsibilities are doing him a huge favor. Weddings are hard to do correctly and fraught with disaster for the unprepared and inexperienced. If the bride and groom are happy with so-so quality snapshots, then let them tell everybody to pull out their cellphones and share the results on Facebook or Google drive, but if you want professional results, hire a pro. It’s the old adage - you generally get what you pay for.

Dannj

Sorry...I took “everyone...” to mean “everyone”.

jdub82 Loc: Northern California

I disagree that 'snapshots' from an abundance of cell phones are better than those taken by an amateur who is a friend or family member. I would rather have someone with a good camera and a good eye for composition, than a bunch of random cell phone snaps from the crowd. As far as 'you get what you pay for' that isn't necessarily true. The Wedding Photographer at my daughter's wedding was pricey, but the pictures he took were not that great. In this digital age, there are an abundance of "Professional Photographers" who have expensive equipment, but they are producing less than stellar work.

pendennis

You will be the "Uncle John". So I'd opt for the 24-120 f/4. In case you can get near the wedding party, and the pro allows it, you'll need the wide end of the range to get group photos; not necessarily at the 24mm mark, but between 28mm and 35mm for group/wedding party photos. You'll likely need wider, rather than telephoto, settings.

A good portrait, whether waist and up (60-80), head and shoulders (105-120), or full length (45-60), can be handled with your 24-120.

The 70-200 is a phenomenal lens, but it will get awfully heavy by around the time the bride and groom bolt.

Add a decent TTL flash (SB600, SB700, etc.) extra batteries, and you should be good to go. You should be able to get great results using ISO 400-800 with the flash. If the ceiling is high, opt for using the diffuser, rather than trying to bounce the light.

Good luck, and enjoy.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

You’re right - there is a plethora of “wedding photographers” in this digital age - Craigslist is full of them - $500 for a wedding taken with their brand new Canon T6i with a kit lens. To be sure, there are real pros with a variety of skills, and some produce better (or different) results than others. The answer is to preview their work on other weddings before committing.

First, and maybe I missed it, it’s not clear to me if he’s the sole shooter or it’s being professionally photographed and he’s taking some shots also. If the latter, then no big deal (except to stay out of the pro’s way), but if the former, then all the warnings are warranted.

I (and I believe most others) are warning about the potential issues of being the sole (inexperienced) photographer with expectations for quality work. If the OP had shot weddings before, he wouldn’t need to ask these questions - he’d have visited the venue and taken light readings and be prepared with the right FL and speed lenses. He’d also have two cameras and flashes, all the lenses he might need, spare memory cards and batteries and a list of required shots of the bride and groom and family members that had already been agreed on with the family. In addition to the list of required shots, they’d agree as to when the shots would be taken, and maybe designate a family member to assemble the subjects in each shot so the photographer could concentrate on the work. That’s what it will take to produce professional grade work, but if the bride, groom and photographer are prepared to settle for less (including zero shots if the only camera or flash fails), then God bless and carry on.

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

First time long a wedding? Unless the reception is being held outdoors on a huge estate, I think your existing lenses should be adequate unless had the main/only photographer. Remember the more time you waste changing lenses and settings equals shots not taken. I took a lot of shots at two of our kid's weddings with my Canon 60D using a 18 - 135 telephoto and had no gripes. Most of your shots will probably be within a reasonable distance so why take a of extra stuff to carry.