What should I go for now?

[lexonio]

Greetings CR community! I am inclined to update my arsenal, and I'm looking for advice.
I'm currently in the process of becoming a journalist, and I'm looking to incorporate my photography hobby into my profession. I currently have 5DmIII and 70-300L, and that's I think is sufficient for now
However I'm short on cash and that's why I was thinking of maybe trying my skills as a wedding photographer, but I don't know which lenses will I need. Except the 70-300L I've just mentioned I also have 24-105L and Sigma's 50mm.
Any advice?

[PeterJ]

I'd recommend a EF 14mm f/2.8L USM. Some photographers like to zoom with their feet but I prefer to sit down and invite the clients and guests to walk towards me if they want a close-up. They might be far away so make sure you include in the contract they'll pay for text messages needed to contact them.

Hope that helps.

[neuroanatomist]

I'd recommend a EF 14mm f/2.8L USM. Some photographers like to zoom with their feet but I prefer to sit down and invite the clients and guests to walk towards me if they want a close-up. They might be far away so make sure you include in the contract they'll pay for text messages needed to contact them.

If the guests really want a close up, wouldn't the MP-E 65mm be a better choice?  It's versatility makes it a great wedding lens (although the same can be said of the 14L).

 

[lexonio]

I do really appreciate your sarcasm despite it not being helpful at all!
;-)

[neuroanatomist]

I'd suggest starting here:

FWIGTEW and Other First Wedding Acronyms

[TrumpetPower!]

My advice?

The gear you already have is perfect for being an "Uncle Bob" -- that guy with the "serious" camera equipment who show up to all the weddings. And being an Uncle Bob can be a lot of fun, and you can even get some good shots out of it. Especially if you forget about the classic must-have shots and instead focus on the types of shots that the hired photographer isn't going to be bothering with or isn't in a position to get.

So, the next time a friend or relative invites you to a wedding, do exactly that, have some fun, and get an idea for what the hired photographer is doing.

If you really had a lot of fun and you got a handful of good shots and you still think that's something you want to do for a living, contact some well-established local wedding photographers and convince one of them to hire you as a second shooter.

At that point, you're off and running.

You might notice that my post is almost entirely devoid of gear advice. That's because, even though wedding photography demands some of the most expensive gear setups in all of photography (basically, low-light high-reliability photojournalism), the gear is actually pretty far down on the list of what you need to be a successful wedding photographer.

Cheers,

b&

[distant.star]

.
No "arsenal" is complete without a powerful handgun. I suggest a .44 magnum.

Than you can successfully shoot yourself for going into wedding photography when you realize what an impossible nightmare it is.

Geez, journalism is bad enough. Do you have a real issue with masochism?

Get yourself an MBA. Become a slithery banker and steal enough money to hire people to take pictures of anything you point at.

[Axilrod]

Maybe a 35L?  It's great in low-light and has a very distinct look.  I think the 14mm is a bad recommendation for weddings, landscapes, yes, but overkill for weddings.  If you do want something really wide a 16-35mm wouldn't be a bad choice. 

I'd consider ditching the 70-300 for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, as it's arguably the best zoom ever made and the quintessential wedding/event lens.

[lexonio]

Thanks folks, I'll be doing some assistant action in a few days and I'll have a look at that 35L. Haven't heard a single bad word about it.

And btw Neuro, thank you for the link, it was quite a fun and insightful read.

[Nishi Drew]

.
No "arsenal" is complete without a powerful handgun. I suggest a .44 magnum.

Than you can successfully shoot yourself for going into wedding photography when you realize what an impossible nightmare it is.

Geez, journalism is bad enough. Do you have a real issue with masochism?

Get yourself an MBA. Become a slithery banker and steal enough money to hire people to take pictures of anything you point at.

Too true

Wedding photography these days feels like it's become anything but taking the pictures; knowing how to market yourself over the slew of other super-affordable (read:free) shooters, keeping up on a contract to protect yourself from getting sued for anything, actually getting sued regardless, and answering to all those requests along the line of "get a shot of us just like this other guys photo!".

But, with all that, I never feel equally fulfilled or happy with myself after anything other than a successful wedding shoot, and especially when the clients are just as happy with what you provide for them~

[preppyak]

Except the 70-300L I've just mentioned I also have 24-105L and Sigma's 50mm.
Any advice?

Well, you'd be woefully under-equipped for any indoor wedding. So, unless you are waiting until next summer, chances are any wedding for the next 6-8 months will be indoors in some fashion. There you'd find that the f/4 of your 24-105 and the variable f/4+ of the 70-300 would be very lacking, forcing you to shoot really high ISO, or 1/30th second shutter speeds. It's gonna result in a lot of blurry photos.

A flash is gonna be critical, as it'd help you get away with f/4 lenses somewhat, but I'd suggest finding a low light prime or two. The 35L would cover that, along with your 50mm from Sigma. If you swapped the 70-300 for the 70-200 f/2.8 you'd have a pretty classic wedding shooter's kit. The other option would be to grab a longer prime (85/100/135) and just keep the 70-300 for outdoor stuff.

Flash will help you get away with most things, except for an indoor church ceremony where they won't allow flash. Only low-light primes will save you there.

[bdunbar79]

.
No "arsenal" is complete without a powerful handgun. I suggest a .44 magnum.

Than you can successfully shoot yourself for going into wedding photography when you realize what an impossible nightmare it is.

Geez, journalism is bad enough. Do you have a real issue with masochism?

Get yourself an MBA. Become a slithery banker and steal enough money to hire people to take pictures of anything you point at.

Yes!  Photography as a SECOND job is in.  It is far more profitable to have a 9-5 job with salary, benefits, 401k, vacation, sick, etc. and then do photography as a second job as opposed to as your main job, where all of that has to be paid for by you.  I'm not saying it can't be done, thousands of photographers are doing it obviously.  But if you are new and you want life to be easier, that's why I do it as a second job.

This is especially true if you are NOT shooting for NG, SI, or you are NOT a photojournalist.  If you're doing weddings and senior pictures, better to have a day job.