Can you cover an entire wedding with 2 bodies and 35, 85 and 135?

[nathen2004]

So, can you cover an entire wedding with 2 bodies and 35, 85 and 135?

It seems like everyone will suggest that you need zoom(s) for weddings because of versatility. But primes have many of their own advantages too. So if you (or I in this case) shoot with 2 bodies (5D and 7D), will it help the versatility factor? Or is it absolutely necessary to get a zoom?

I am actually going to help a couple of my friends out this summer for their weddings, that's why I am asking. I actually have a budget to get a zoom, either the 24-70 or the 70-200 2.8 IS mark I. But I don't really like zoom myself, and the zoom will probably solely for the 3 weddings this summer. So, should I get a zoom? If so, which one?

(Or should I buy a 24L for to cover the wide end )

[jcolman]

Sure you could but the question is should you? Why limit yourself and, more importantly, your clients to just those lenses.

But I guess it all comes down to style and choice. I like having the option to shoot really wide and really long and everything in between. Just because I have a lot of lenses doesn't mean that they all get used but they are there if and when I need them.

[form]

You could ask someone who shoots with all primes starting at 24mm and going up to about 50mm...he will tell you that it can probably be done.

[Bentapp2]

i cover an entire wedding with a 5dmk2, 50d, 24 1.4/50 1.4/135 f2 and have never felt limited.

[picturecrazy]

You can totally shoot a wedding with that setup.

But I never would. In my opinion, such limited setups greatly reduce the variety of perspective.

Variety is the spice of life, right?

[airfrogusmc]

Originally Posted by nathen2004

So, can you cover an entire wedding with 2 bodies and 35, 85 and 135?

It seems like everyone will suggest that you need zoom(s) for weddings because of versatility. But primes have many of their own advantages too. So if you (or I in this case) shoot with 2 bodies (5D and 7D), will it help the versatility factor? Or is it absolutely necessary to get a zoom?

I am actually going to help a couple of my friends out this summer for their weddings, that's why I am asking. I actually have a budget to get a zoom, either the 24-70 or the 70-200 2.8 IS mark I. But I don't really like zoom myself, and the zoom will probably solely for the 3 weddings this summer. So, should I get a zoom? If so, which one?

(Or should I buy a 24L for to cover the wide end )

Absolutely. Some of the greatest wedding photographers that made some of the greatest wedding photographs ever made shot with Hasselblads and shot them with a 50mm/80mm/and 150mm lens.

I knew an incredible wedding photographer (deceased now) that shot with 2 Leica Ms and a 50mm lens on one camera and a 35mm lens on the other and its rare that I see anything on POTN that comes close to level of his work. He was doing photojournalism during the Monte era when it wasn't all the rage.

I would add the 24L.

[nathen2004]

With my current setup should I add 24-70 or the 70-200 then?

[airfrogusmc]

Originally Posted by nathen2004

With my current setup should I add 24-70 or the 70-200 then?

Thats a personal call that only you can make.

Some say they'd miss shots without a zoom and I'm from the camp that would say you just learn to see other shots.

Theres plenty of successful and very good photographers out there that just shoot with primes, just as there are very good photographers that just zooms and then theres everything in between but yes, you can shoot a wedding and if you know how to fully use the gear you listed, you could do a very good job and the B&G could care less how you did it.

[mikekelley]

switch the 35 to a 24 and the 85 to a 50 and we're in business

[tim]

I couldn't work with my widest lens being a 35mm. I like the ability to go to 16mm for situations I can't control, like ceremonies and group shots in small locations.

[snakeman55]

My opinion is you could easily make that rig work as a friend helping out. Should you do it as a professional? No. Wide shots are important.

And weddings aside, with your set up, I'd be looking at a 24L anyway... I wouldn't get a 24-70, especially if you don't really like zooms.

[Peacefield]

As others have said, you could, but I wouldn't. 35 isn't nearly as wide as you should want to be on that end; I'd add the 14mm if you were going all prime. Even if you wanted all prime, I can't imagine not having the 24-70 for the reception when I need and want to react quickly to changing situations or opportunities that present themselves spontaneously.

Primes are great for portraits and so many other things where you have a lot of control. Even the ceremony where, though you don't have control, it moves slowly in a planned manner. Come the reception, IT is in control and moving very quickly and you need to be able to respond to it.

[neil_r]

Yes

[helloagain36]

Yes, you could do it easily...however...I agree with the others that you may want to add something a bit wider like a 24L or a 16-35L.

[nicksan]

Affirmative.