- For equal max aperture, the fast fixed focal length lenses are not necessarily lighter than same max aperture zoom...200mm f/2.8 = 70-200mm f/2.8 in weight!
- You do NOT save weight by carrying primes; the more primes you carry (to try to better get 'equivalent FL') the worse it gets.
- But for same FL, the prime does offer a more compact total package which is less conspicuous (shorter length, not white).
- And the prime does offer the likely availability of a faster max aperture (e.g. 100mm f/2 or 135mm f2) than the same FL in a f/2.8 zoom.
- And the zoom does offer far better ability to 'crop in the camera' by altering FL to better frame the most important elements of the shot, rather than having to alter camera position.
- Carrying two bodies with different FL lenses is NOT less weight than same single body with a zoom, and it increases the handling difficulty.
For equal max aperture, no I have lenses that shoot at f/.4 I'd probably use that aperture at times and any of those primes are half the weight of that monster zoom
I wouldn't be carrying that many lenses, one tele, like the 135/2, one mid either the 50 or 35 and one wide like the 24. So probably three lenses at a wedding, much less then your zooms [plus the above of course] so the overall weight is less.
I like the less conspicuous look of the primes too. Yes faster aperture but often no OIS, and that sometimes is a pain with the longer primes like the 135/2 & 200/2.8.
At a wedding I'd always have two cameras on me anyway and one in the bag, just in case, one camera for the wider lens and one for the tele, I doubt Id ever shoot with an 85 on one and at 135 [or 200] on the other but you never know, in that regard the 70-200 would make way more sense.
Hope I'm not repeating my self there, it's been a long week.