35L wide enough for weddings?

I have a 17-40 I can borrow.

jakeg1999 wrote in post #11525123
I have a 17-40 I can borrow.

I think you will be fine with what you have. The 17-40 will cover any shots that are wider than 35, but as the second shooter it isn't critical. I would also think about taking that 70-200 and upgrading to the MK II f2.8 version. That and the 35 L are my most used lenses during weddings. I occasionally use the 24-105 for stopped down group shots and the 100 L for detail shots. The 17-40 for venue and church.

Borrow it , then check your shots . You will probably find most are at f4 or above , but you will want the 2.8

gonzogolf wrote in post #11522231
I have felt the say way and have to swallow my tongue everytime I see a thread on how the 35L is a must have lens for full frame. I just dont get it.

I'm with you on that. I've never used a 35L specifically but rarely find myself going below 50 mm or so on my 24-105, and when I do, it's usually at or near 24. I guess it depends in part on one's personal standard shots and venues. I rented a 16-35 for my BIL's wedding and only used a couple of incidental shots, no humans. I could have taken those with my 24-105.

I use the 35 and 85 for weddings and they are my most used lenses. When I shoot groups, I'm using my 17-55 on 7D. I also got a 17-40 but it doesn't really fit my style so I'm not using it that much.

As a second shooter, the 35-85 is more than enough. Concentrate on other aspects of photography (mastering the light, posing the couple and guests ...) rather than switching lenses all the time and have fun !

I don't shoot for money .
The last wedding I went to , I got maybe 4 shots with the 28-135 .
Maybe 20 with the 10-22 and about 100 with the 17-55 . It's not worth checking the EXIF data but I dout any were at 35 .
35 is about max on the 10-22 and about the middle of the 17-55 .

Thanks for all the advice, I feel comfortable with what I have for now. Hopefully I will be able to add to my lens bag by the end of the year. This should be an exciting year to come!

r.morales wrote in post #11527986
I don't shoot for money .
The last wedding I went to , I got maybe 4 shots with the 28-135 .
Maybe 20 with the 10-22 and about 100 with the 17-55 . It's not worth checking the EXIF data but I dout any were at 35 .
35 is about max on the 10-22 and about the middle of the 17-55 .

You realize that 35mm for the OP is 22mm for you, right?

Yes , I try not to hit the extremes on any lens - on the 10-22 that means I try to stay at 11 to 21 mm , On the 17-55 , - 19 - to about 50mm . That is me , I know people try to push their lenses to max and get good shots - but if I was that good , I probably would not pay that much attention to what I was / am doing .
I have the /a 28 , 35 and 50 mm - none " L's " - all older . The 28 and 50 [mk 1] are slow focusing and the 35 is a little faster . My 17-55 beats them all - I seldom use f2.8 on it and the 50 1.8 I did not really like the DOF at 1.8 .
My 35-350 L really sucks at 35mm . At about 50mm it gets acceptable .
It is probably me but I don't like 18 [25] , 35 [55] , 60 [90] and 110 [165] mm and do my best to avoid them . That's on the XTI and might change on the 7D .
Do any of you try to avoid certain MM's ? I know most of you look for and try to use the sweet spot , but no one mentions the sour spots - I know they should be different on each lens . [Sweet and sour spots .] Maybe I should start a new tread ?

r.morales wrote in post #11529380
I know most of you look for and try to use the sweet spot , but no one mentions the sour spots - I know they should be different on each lens . [Sweet and sour spots .] Maybe I should start a new tread ?

There are no sour spots on the 35 L. Good right from wide open and gets even better as you stop down a bit.

Thanks , after reading , I figured I would check .
1400 for the lens - quite honestly - I would go for the 100-400 1st
The price and the fact I want to stay with 77 mm . I don't like adapter rings , so I already have the 72 mm filters for the 28-135 and the 35-350 .
Just to specialized for the amount of use I would get .

I shot my sister-in-law's wedding years ago with one lens - a 35-70f3.5 Minolta MD zoom. I used it on my X700 Minolta film camera with a Vivitar flash.
The 35mm end of the zoom was perfect for getting dancing couples and groups. The longer end worked for other shots.

OP, have you spoken with the primary photographer to determine what she/he expects of you?

Yes I have and he doesn't expect me to have a UWA and he seems comfortable with my skill set thus far. It's more for my personal desire to get the important shots. It's to help build my portfolio and build upon my experience, and I want to provide him with the best images I can capture. It's mainly a matter of spending money now that I don't have vs. buying some time to save so I can buy a UWA with cash. My goal is to obviously do some weddings on my own at which time I will have at least the UWA and hopefully either a macro and or a fisheye. I'm also in the process of paying for a website, so the debt is staring to grow, although it's manageable now.

Well, based on his expectations, is 35 wide enough?