# New prime lenses for wedding/events



## fiend (Mar 17, 2012)

Hi everyone on CR.
I've been following this site for over a year, watching for rumors of the 5D mkIII.

Now it's time to get the new 5DmkIII and of this, I'm going to sell and reinvest in some new lenses.
Currently I have

5D mkII
7D
(soon 5D mkIII)

Lenses
Canon 24-70/2.8
Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II
Samyang 8mm
Sigma 85/1.4
Canon 50/1.8

I've tried a Nikon D3X with a 200/2.0 and it completely blew away my 5D mkII and 70-200 at 2.8. I've tried 2 bodies and 2 lenses, Non was even close when wide open (compared to the 200/2.0 fully open aswell).

I've come to the situation when Im about to switch from zoom-lenses to prime lenses with a fixed length.

My options are as I see it:
24/1.4
35/1.4
50/1.4 (or 50/1.2)
85/1.2 (or 50/1.8)
100 IS (macro I will get due to the macro posibility)
135/2.0

My first thought is to get:
5D mkII with 35/1.4
5D mkIII with 135/2.0
+ 50/1.4
+ 85/1.2 ?

And to sell every other lens exept the 70-200/2.8 II IS

But then I wont have any more wide angle anymore than the 35mm.
Any tips on how to do? What would you do? What do you have?

Best regards
Fredrik


----------



## tt (Mar 17, 2012)

Majority or wedding pictures aren't usually shot at 24mm or below. Scene setting perhaps?
Is it fair to say the 24mm or a wider angle lens is more niche, like a macro for detail shots?

If you could rent you could try the ones you mention?
Is it out of left field to try the kit 24-105mm if you're going 5DM3? Could easily sell it on (an the kits are being sold before the body only 5DMkIII at the moment it seems) 

What focal length do you prefer at the moment and what style / focal length do you want to get into?

Eg a 135 is a less conspicuous prime lens for speeches than a 75-200, with an 85 as a hotter focal length alternative. 
A 50mm and below can give PJ shots.
The 85 1.2 and 100 macro would give great general portrait shots (and the 135 too I'd imagine?) 

The 85mm 1.8 and 50 1.4 are great value lenses to try the focal length with their L counterparts renowned.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 17, 2012)

What's your main reason for wanting primes? Seems to be sharpness? With the budget that you seem to have, at least in the 24-70 range, and coupled with a 5D mk3, you may just want to get the 24-70 II. It will be fast enough for big prints on a 5D mk3, and it's supposedly prime-sharp. (Might be worth awaiting some bokeh comparisons of course, but expectations for the 9-blade 24-70 II are pretty high.)


----------



## fiend (Mar 17, 2012)

Tijn said:


> What's your main reason for wanting primes? Seems to be sharpness? With the budget that you seem to have, at least in the 24-70 range, and coupled with a 5D mk3, you may just want to get the 24-70 II. It will be fast enough for big prints on a 5D mk3, and it's supposedly prime-sharp. (Might be worth awaiting some bokeh comparisons of course, but expectations for the 9-blade 24-70 II are pretty high.)


the main reason is speed,accuracy and sharpness all together.hate when the camera cant find/misses focus and when it finally locks on it is not as sharp as I want it to be.
I also really like a shallow dof and creamy bokeh for my portraits.
So ideal main lenses for wedding in general aswell as a really creamy sharp portrait lens for portraits would be nice.


----------



## fiend (Mar 17, 2012)

tt said:


> Majority or wedding pictures aren't usually shot at 24mm or below. Scene setting perhaps?
> Is it fair to say the 24mm or a wider angle lens is more niche, like a macro for detail shots?
> 
> If you could rent you could try the ones you mention?
> ...



the more wide angle could be used for overview in church and such things.h
getting the scenery.
Im not that into f4 that the 24-105 gives me even if it has IS :/

the 135 is not that ideal for portraits I guess but it should work at least.the 85/1.8 and 50/1.4 could do the trick I guess even if the 85/1.2 is the dream lens ..but veryexpensive


----------



## epiem (Mar 17, 2012)

24-70 2.8L II (to replace 24-70 I)
50mm 1.2
100mm 2.8L
70-200 2.8L II

Those are pretty much all you need.

Maybe a 35mm instead of a 24-70, but I personally like having a circumstantial lens and a nice "wider" angle for venue shots and maybe a 85mm 1.2 instead of 50mm; for me, the 50mm fits my shooting style better than the 85. 

I would never shoot anything lower than 24mm on a FF though.


----------



## fiend (Mar 17, 2012)

epiem said:


> 24-70 2.8L II (to replace 24-70 I)
> 50mm 1.2
> 100mm 2.8L
> 70-200 2.8L II
> ...


interesting options.
The thing is that the 24-70 II is not out yet..al least not in Sweden where I live :/
And the 70-200 II is is great in the studio but its way to soft and inaccurate on 2.8 which I use outside in low light and in church. :/
Therefor I've looked at the 135/2.0 and the 85/1.2 for FF on the new 5D III to get the sharp creamy bookeh and sdof they can give me aswell as beeing sharp and accurate. 
Or am I thinking wrong here?


----------



## epiem (Mar 17, 2012)

I say crank the ISO and shoot at higher Fstop...But that's just me and my editing style.
Esp since the mIII should handle better than the mII...And I have been using the mII for a while.

I guess it would really come down to the type of photos you want and your personal style.

To each their own, ya know?


----------



## fiend (Mar 17, 2012)

epiem said:


> I say crank the ISO and shoot at higher Fstop...But that's just me and my editing style.
> Esp since the mIII should handle better than the mII...And I have been using the mII for a while.
> 
> I guess it would really come down to the type of photos you want and your personal style.
> ...



If thats true, than I could just use lenses with f4 or maybe f5.6 or f6.3 wide open?
My personal style is to have the option to go very shallow dof so I can seperate the people from the background. If I want, I can go up the f-stop. But that is probably better to do with a faster lens instead. Like a f.1.4 up to f4 or f 5.6.
WIth a lens with F4 I might have to turn it up to F5.6 to make it sharp enough.

I still think that sdof is my personal way to go. Then no lenses with F4 or higher is an option for me


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 17, 2012)

My own wedding kit is in two parts:

Core zooms:
17-40 f/4L
24-105 f/4L
70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II

And fast primes:
24 f/1.4L II
50 f/1.4
85 f/1.8

When I'm shooting fixed lenses in dark reception halls, I'd say I use the 24 60% of the time, the 50 about 30% of the time, and the 85 the rest. The 24 is a killer low light lens, and it focuses perfectly even with my original 5D.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Mar 17, 2012)

I see the 50 1.2 at wedding a lot. I think the 35 1.4 would be a sweet lens to have.

Why not get the 16-35? Wide angle shots are always sweet, and 2.8, oh baby.


----------



## fiend (Mar 17, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> I see the 50 1.2 at wedding a lot. I think the 35 1.4 would be a sweet lens to have.
> 
> Why not get the 16-35? Wide angle shots are always sweet, and 2.8, oh baby.



50/1.2 you say.must check it more then.is there a big difference between it and the 1.4?
The 16-35 seems nice yes.Its a maybe aswell..for the wide angle shots of church and groups of people.


----------



## tt (Mar 17, 2012)

fiend said:


> And the 70-200 II is is great in the studio but its way to soft and inaccurate on 2.8 which I use outside in low light and in church. :/
> Therefor I've looked at the 135/2.0 and the 85/1.2 for FF on the new 5D III to get the sharp creamy bookeh and sdof they can give me aswell as beeing sharp and accurate.
> Or am I thinking wrong here?


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Should be sharp even at 2.8. 
Can make the f stop smaller and still have the added bonus of the focusing with f2.8

Would have a narrow depth of field and depth of in focus area though. 

I think it's been mentioned that the f stop is only one factor for depth of field, the distance to subject and distance to background also play a part. 

Different parts of a wedding do seem to suit different primes - 85,135 for reach, wide angles 25,35, 50 for closer to subject and wide angle shots. 
I guess a 24-70 or a 24-105 would e the nearest unobtrusive 1 zoom lens to cover most of the shots. 
I guess personal preference, personal style (how close you like to be with subjects for example) really does weigh into lens choice for weddings and event photography.


----------



## PaperTiger (Mar 17, 2012)

For weddings, there's either an 85L or a 50 mm 1.4 on a camera at all times when we shoot weddings. The 85L is a lens that is absolutely invaluable for weddings. Basically it allows you to shoot photos with absolutely no location because you have the ability to turn the entire background to mushy bokeh goodness. The 135L is nice, but I find it a little too long for weddings.

We use the 24-70L for the wide end of the spectrum. It's fairly rare that we need 24 mm in low light without a flash, and there's no depth of field at that focal length anyway (unless you want photos of giant noses).

Honestly, I don't see the difference between the 50L and the 50mm 1.4. The L isn't super duper sharp wide open (testing says the 1.4 does a better job at the lower apertures) and 1.2 to 1.4 is only a half stop, not really worth the price. You can argue the same about the 85L, but the full stop difference between 1.2 and 1.8 is nice. Its autofocus makes me want to throw it in the garbage though.


----------



## kennykodak (Mar 17, 2012)

epiem said:


> 24-70 2.8L II (to replace 24-70 I)
> 50mm 1.2
> 100mm 2.8L
> 70-200 2.8L II



same here plus the 14 2.8L II


----------



## dmj (Mar 17, 2012)

35L is my workhorse, in my mind it's an amazing lens coupled with the 5D mkII. I've been shooting weddings and events for some time and I only really bring zooms as backup.

The 35L is as mentioned my workhorse, I use an 85L for the portraits/tableshots etc. and finally a 135L as my preffered candid lens. I also bring a 14L, 24L and a 200L, but those are mostly used for niche shots (church interior or if I need range while shooting the ceremony.

I personally don't find the 50L amazing even though it's the pefferred workhorse of a lot of people. I prefer my primes over zooms solely because of DOF and the smooth bokeh, that they generally give better overall look is also a great feature. The only place I feel i hold out a bit is that I use a set of tubes for my macro shots.


----------



## elflord (Mar 17, 2012)

fiend said:


> interesting options.
> The thing is that the 24-70 II is not out yet..al least not in Sweden where I live :/
> And the 70-200 II is is great in the studio but its way to soft and inaccurate on 2.8 which I use outside in low light and in church. :/
> Therefor I've looked at the 135/2.0 and the 85/1.2 for FF on the new 5D III to get the sharp creamy bookeh and sdof they can give me aswell as beeing sharp and accurate.
> Or am I thinking wrong here?



I haven't used the 70-200mm f/2.8, but according to most tests it performs pretty well at f/2.8 compared to the other lenses that you're looking at. 

The 135mm is a nice lens but you need a fast shutter speed because it doesn't have IS.

I notice you already have the Sigma 85mm f/1.4. What are you hoping to gain by replacing it ?


----------



## Halfrack (Mar 17, 2012)

Start by renting / borrowing the Canon 200/2 lens. You loved it on the Nikon, now see what it does on your 5dII. 

Then check out the new 24mm and 28mm 2.8IS lenses if you can wait for June - or later  - it may be just want you need for indoor shots.


----------

