# Looking for opinions on a new lens. Zoom vs Prime.



## notoriouslightning (Sep 15, 2013)

Hi Everyone,
So I know the majority of you probably get sick of these topics, but with that said I just wanted to see what the lot of you thought about my situation. 
So here it is if you are interested.
I currently Shoot with a 5d mark 3 with the following setup. 24-105,100mm L, canon 50 1.4, canon 85mm 1.8, and 17-40 f4. I also have a 430 ex mark II. I have been doing a handful of weddings and have a a fair amount coming up and was flirting with the idea of adding a new lens to the arsenal. I have about $1500 and what I was considering was selling the 24-105 to get the 24-70 2.8 mark II, or keeping the 24-105 and getting the sigma 35 1.4 and upgrading my speedlight to the 600. I really like fast glass, not only for its low light capability, but just as much so for the DOF. The 24-105 has treated me well as most of the wedding I do are outside, but that may change. The 24-70 looks amazing, but Im loving the 35 1.4, sigma has made a monster. I am also eyeing the 70-200 2.8 II, but that a different day. 
So any feedback? 
Thanks in advance.


----------



## crasher8 (Sep 15, 2013)

Sigma 35. Enough has been said, get it.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 15, 2013)

notoriouslightning said:


> Hi Everyone,
> So I know the majority of you probably get sick of these topics, but with that said I just wanted to see what the lot of you thought about my situation.
> So here it is if you are interested.
> I currently Shoot with a 5d mark 3 with the following setup. 24-105,100mm L, canon 50 1.4, canon 85mm 1.8, and 17-40 f4. I also have a 430 ex mark II. I have been doing a handful of weddings and have a a fair amount coming up and was flirting with the idea of adding a new lens to the arsenal. I have about $1500 and what I was considering was selling the 24-105 to get the 24-70 2.8 mark II, or keeping the 24-105 and getting the sigma 35 1.4 and upgrading my speedlight to the 600. I really like fast glass, not only for its low light capability, but just as much so for the DOF. The 24-105 has treated me well as most of the wedding I do are outside, but that may change. The 24-70 looks amazing, but Im loving the 35 1.4, sigma has made a monster. I am also eyeing the 70-200 2.8 II, but that a different day.
> ...


Depending on the type of pictures you make, 24-70 F2.8 increase the creative possibilities. However, your 85mm is very close to your 50mm. In this case, it would be good to replace the 85mm by 100mm F2.


----------



## notoriouslightning (Sep 15, 2013)

Out of everything I have I use the 85 the least, but I already have a 100 2.8 L that I love. Don't need another 100mm. I do plan on using the 85 more in the future, its stupid fast and a lot sharper than the 50.


----------



## mkabi (Sep 15, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> notoriouslightning said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Everyone,
> ...



In my opinion, I own a 100mm f/2 and I've used an 85mm f/1.8... I like both, but I have to disagree about 85 being too close to 50mm. I believe that the 85mm is an amazing portrait lens especially on FF, 100mm is good but bit too close (almost fills too much screen for me). That extra 15mm makes a difference.

What you should do is lose both 24-105 & 17-40, and get both the 24-70mm and the 35mm.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 15, 2013)

notoriouslightning said:


> Out of everything I have I use the 85 the least, but I already have a 100 2.8 L that I love. Don't need another 100mm.


In this case you will not miss the range of 70-105mm, and can go saving for a 70-200mm in the future. 8)


----------



## notoriouslightning (Sep 15, 2013)

while the 35,50,85,and 100 are all close to each other, I could totally justify having all four primes. As for the 17-40, I use it way to much to ever consider getting rid of it unless it was replaced by another UWA lens. Anyone else out there using the 24-105 for wedding, and if so how do you like it?


----------



## Eli (Sep 15, 2013)

Sell it all, get the 24-70 ii, sigma 35 and canon 135 and you're set.. If you love shallow DOF you'll love the 135..
Not sure how much you'll end up using the sigma after you get the 24-70 ii though..


----------



## beckstoy (Sep 15, 2013)

I own the 24-105 and I still use it on my 5DM3, but I've found I only use it when I'm looking for those group photos in tight spaces. Other than that, I don't use it much anymore.

I use my 50 1.4 and 70-200 (which is constantly attached to my camera). I freakin' love that lens, and if you sold your 24-105 and used your $1500 in pocket, you'd be able to afford it. That's the one lens which I've found to be completely irreplaceable. Other needs can be fudged by walking a bit, but that 70-200 is a stunner. 

...just a thought...

I'm also now saving up my money to see if the recently-announced Sigma 135 and 24-70 f2.0 are any good.


----------



## notoriouslightning (Sep 16, 2013)

beckstoy- What 70-200 are you using? I was thinking about doing this, but the 70-200 2.8 is II is even more than the 24-70.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 16, 2013)

I have 4 friends(Wedding Pro for 15yrs plus), all carry 24-70 + 70-200 with 2 bodies(FF) at the event. 3-4 flashes and million batteries.

In addition to that: 50L, 85L, 100 macro, and 135L for special shots. 

They usually go in pair. Each carry 2 5D III

1st shooter: 24-70 + 70-200 with 2 5D III - general shooter
2nd shooter: 50L + 135L or 85L with 2 5D III - creative shooter


----------



## notoriouslightning (Sep 16, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I have 4 friends(Wedding Pro for 15yrs plus), all carry 24-70 + 70-200 with 2 bodies(FF) at the event. 3-4 flashes and million batteries.
> 
> In addition to that: 50L, 85L, 100 macro, and 135L for special shots.
> 
> ...


Ideally this is where I want to be in the future. For right now its baby steps as im not shooting a ton of weddings nor is my income allowing for such things. So I guess at this time I have three choices, keep the 24-105 and get the sigma 35mm 1.4, or sell the 24-105 and get the 70-200 or the 24-70.


----------



## klickflip (Sep 16, 2013)

I've found at events and weddings the 24-105 is great, perfect for catching everything from a wide shot 1 sec to spotting a nice 105mm candid portrait the next sec, the F4 can be a a bit limiting but nothing thats too bad. 

I've held off getting the 24-70 as I feel the 2.8 is less of a bonus than the 105 reach for these types of gigs. general punter isnt going to notice the diference but will appreciate the variety of shots you captured quickly. 
The sharpness of the 24-70II looks amazing though.

Now though I hardly use the 24-105 as most of my work is more controlled and primes suit this better. But when I do have to shoot an event the 24-105 always works great and I realise its a great lens despite the beef it gets.

And to get some nicer stylish shots 50 & 85 nearly wide open are great, I would add the sigma 35 and the 135 to expand this .this would complete your prime lineup, and 135 is lovely for candids from a distance at receptions. 

Also start shooting personal portraits and other work with the primes to get more familiarity working with these and you'll get some lovely inspiring shots. 

Other than that, save up for the L's especially the 50 its magical!


----------



## notoriouslightning (Sep 16, 2013)

For those of you using the 70-200 2.8. Is the older non IS version still pulling its weight, or is the newer mark II IS version worth saving up another $1000?


----------



## bholliman (Sep 16, 2013)

In your shoes, I would apply the $1500 toward the purchase of a 70-200 2.8 II. This is an awesome lens and while you current lenses are very good, you are limited to 105mm, which isn't much reach on a FF camera. The 24-105 is a terrific general purpose lens and combined with your 50 and 85 you have the 24-105mm range covered pretty well.

Personally, I prefer the 50mm focal length to 35mm, so ended up selling my 35L about a month ago as I seldom used it since adding a 24-70 2.8 II.


----------



## notoriouslightning (Sep 16, 2013)

bholliman- The more I think about it, I feel like this might be the best bet. Assuming I sold the 24-105 and got the 70-200 the only gap would be from 40-70 and I have the 50 to cover that. Hmmm.


----------



## beckstoy (Sep 16, 2013)

notoriouslightning said:


> beckstoy- What 70-200 are you using? I was thinking about doing this, but the 70-200 2.8 is II is even more than the 24-70.



Notorious - I realized afterwards that I'd neglected to say it's the MkII. The 70-200 f2.8 IS II USM.

Yeah, it's a little more, but it's the best dollar I've spent on lenses to date.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 16, 2013)

notoriouslightning said:


> while the 35,50,85,and 100 are all close to each other, I could totally justify having all four primes. As for the 17-40, I use it way to much to ever consider getting rid of it unless it was replaced by another UWA lens. Anyone else out there using the 24-105 for wedding, and if so how do you like it?


I have used the 24-105 a lot. Outdoors, when I could stop it down a bit, it produces excellent results and it is a good walkaraound lens. But indoors, wide open, I am less enthusiastic. I bought the 24-70 f2.8L II, which outperforms it in every department, apart from not having IS. That is not bothering me though. In really low light I use 35/1.4 and 85/1.2, or a tripod.

In my view you have 3 options:
1: Sell the 24-105 and get the 24-70
2: Get the Sigma 35/1.4 and the 600 flash
3: Get the 70-200 f2.8L IS version I, which is well within your budget, or eat bread and drink water for a while and get the version II, which is a lot better.

PS! The only ever lasting truth about photography is that there is no end to the amount of money you can throw at it


----------



## spacetimeroger (Sep 18, 2013)

May I ask what kind of photography you are interested in pursuing? Are you interested in doing more and more weddings in order to earn income, or is the income from this work just an added bonus which will allow you to buy more gear in order to pursue other photographic interests?

I ask, because when you are first starting out and interested in generating income, the best thing to do will be to rent the lenses you need, rather than buy them. This will keep you in the black. It takes a $2000 lens some time to pay for itself when you're just starting out. It's good to own some nice lenses that you like and are comfortable with, for sure, but it's not something you have to do all at once. You can do it gradually. There's no reason to put financial pressure on yourself at this stage in the game if you're not sure about what you want yet. Buy the lenses you love and will use a lot (even outside of doing wedding jobs) and rent the others. Renting will give you the opportunity to use anything you want.

The 17-40 is great, I'd keep that one, but if you only own body, and are shooting weddings solo, you need that mid-range zoom (24-105). As I'm sure you've experienced, things move very quickly and weddings and you may find yourself in situations where you need more reach than the 17-40mm offers, yet you don't have enough time to switch lenses.

There is no doubt that you need a longer telephoto however, I will not advise you to sell the 24-105mm at this time in order to buy it...not unless you get a 2nd body so that you can have something wide at the ready (without changing lenses).

You could shoot an entire wedding with a 24-105mm on a single body, and still get pretty good results if you *had* to...and it wouldn't be that bad. That's the value of a mid-range zoom like the 24-105mm.

You could maybe do it with a 17-40 only, but portraits would not be a pretty sight. And you'd miss a lot with a 70-200mm only. On paper, it sounds good to have a 17-40, a 50, and 70-200mm -- that really covers every length...but it doesn't cover them in an ideal way with just one body--it will actually be an incredibly non-ideal setup and a pain in the butt to use. You'll be switching lenses way, way, way too much, and missing shots, slowing down the pace of the wedding, and it will be hard for you to get into a good rhythm of shooting.

The appeal of the 35/1.4 is understandable, and I won't try to dissuade you on that. Just keep in mind that your lens bag is getting pretty large, and if you're just on one body...it's going to be tricky to make use of all the lenses you bring with you. The only way to know for sure, however, is to try it out -- you might love the lens, or you might hate it. Try it before you buy it.

Keep the 24-105mm, it's a solid performer. It's great for outdoor weddings. Try a 35mm f/1.4...if you like it, consider buying it. The 35/1.4 will be great during receptions, certain kinds of detail shots, etc.

You still need something to cover your tele needs. If it turns out you aren't crazy about the 35 after trying it, then buy whatever 70-200mm is in your budget and you're done. Don't worry about mkI vs mkII vs IS, etc., just get what you can afford. IS is not that important for wedding work--fast shutter speeds are, and every version of the 70-200mm f/2.8 L lens that Canon has produced has been more than *great.* I use the old 80-200mm f/2.8 L "magic drainpipe" professionally, at weddings, constantly, it's my favorite lens of all time...and I've had it since I got my EOS-1 film camera in the early 90s.

However, if you love the 35mm, and use some of your budget on it, then consider the 200mm f/2.8 L prime along with it instead of the tele zoom.

You could probably get both the 35mm & 200mm for close to $1500 if you buy used (not much more new - sell that 85mm and you're good). 

You won't have zoom with the 200mm prime, but it's fast, super duper sharp, inexpensive, and most of the time, with 70-200mm lenses, you're either on 70, 135, or 200. The 24-105 covers the wider end of that range already. Just break out the 200mm when you know you are going to go around and take tele shots.

Then you've got your bases pretty well covered -- two fast primes for low-light indoors (35 & 50), a good wide (17-40), good moderate-tele zoom (24-105) that will work great outdoors, (and indoors with flash), and then a brilliant, fast telephoto. That's more lenses than any single photographer really needs for a solo shooting job. You'll be hard pressed to have the time to use them all if you only have one body.

It's a misconception to think that you need to cover every conceivable focal length--it really isn't true, you'll be plenty close enough for a while if you go this route. Not having every possible focal length also forces you to try different things w/regards to composition.

To reiterate (1): You've gotta have a mid-range zoom if you're going to do weddings solo -- if you sell the 24-105, I'd only replace it with something like the 24-70mm -- but you don't necessarily have to get the mkII, you could get a used mkI, or even one of the older 28-70mm f/2.8 Ls.

Notes (2): If you're going to keep doing weddings (I'm just assuming solo,) you need a 2nd body more than you need to buy another lens. Beyond a 2nd body, you need a telephoto more than a 35.

Bottom line, rent things before you buy them -- rent some things you haven't mentioned too -- you might fall in love with one of them -- then buy what you can see yourself using long term -- and you don't have to buy the latest and greatest just to be in the game, Canon has made lots of good L lenses over the years, they are mostly all good, some of them are quite cheap now, and great wedding photography is about skill more than which version of which L lens was used. Find out what you like and works best for you.

Attached a couple of 80-200mm f/2.8 L "Magic Drainpipe" shots here, these are just a couple from the last year that I like, both 80-200mm shots were taken on the 7D.


----------

