Who sold his Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC and why ? Return to 35 1.4 Art?

I sold my 35 Art as I allready had the 50 Art + I had to do a wedding + now and then I do events, so I was unsure about missing space of the wider 24-35 f2.8 part during the wedding.
The Tamron is a great sharp zoomlens with VC (nice for filming), but I like going back to f1.4 when necessary for more creative bokeh / lowlight possibilities.
I think i'll manage with the 35 Art + 70-200 2.8L II for future events or weddings (still have a 16-35 f4 IS just in case), don't need a boring standardzoom range for events or a sporadic wedding, what do you think ?

If I was shooting weddings, I would want a 24-70 but that's me.

To me, there are a few things going on here that you should think about:

1) What lens goes on your primary camera, and what's on the backup? Or do you leave the backup in your bag?
2) Is the backup the same format size as the primary? If the primary dies, a different format changes how you will use your lenses. This is less of an issue with zooms than primes, I think.

Good question, I can chime in and share my opinion.

As a job I shoot weddings, real estate, events, and portraits. The lenses I own are listed in my signature.
My most used lens at weddings and events is my 24-70 2.8 II. Second most used is my Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS. I have a few primes too and just purchased a Sigma 35 1.4 ART, but mostly for low-light receptions. I also use my 85 1.8 quite a lot for prep shots and during reception.
I know I'm giving up light and DoF by not using fast primes, but on the other hand I can compose my shots better, and shooting at 2.8 on FF still gives a nice shallow DoF, if not super artistic. By not having to crop as much as with a prime, my workload is lighter during post.
During events (receptions, dinners, company parties) I pretty much don't use my primes at all, only using the 24-70 + 70-200 combo. Sometimes a lot of things are happening and I can run back and forth in order to frame the perfect shot with prime.

When doing the family photos after the ceremony my 24-70 is a great tool since the size of the group is changing all the time and sometimes it's hard to step back. But, like you, I also have the 16-35 f/4 IS and that can handle wide groups if I run out of room with my 24-70. But with time usually on short supply, it's better if I don't have to switch lenses multiple times during those shoots.

So for what I do the 24-70 2.8 II is vital.

No way! The 24-70 f2.8 is my go to lens for weddings. It lives on my 1Ds Mk III and the 70-200mm f2.8 has a home on my 1D Mk IV.
I also have the Siggy 35mm 'Art' but it is used rarely for weddings. The two combos above are all I need.

I don't have experience with either lens, but I'm going through a similar dilemma. I'm a prime-guy and I've done many events (and wedding second-shooter gigs) with my primes, often pairing them with my 17-40L when necessary. I probably do more running around than necessary in order to frame things the way I want, but that hasn't deterred me from my preference towards primes.

I recently sold my 35mm f2 IS to fund a 24-70 f2.8 v1 because I'm going solo for a wedding in a few months. I played around with the zoom for a week using it in various settings and ultimately decided that it's not for me. Even though I do feel that it is acceptable sharp and I like having the flexibility, I just miss shooting and framing things with my 35mm...so I have a Sigma 35A in the mail and the 24-70 is back on the market. I'm going to pair it with either my 85 1.8 or 135L on my crop-sensor body to cover most of the wedding.

Point is, I think it comes down to your style. There's no denying that more flexibilty comes with the zoom and that you're more likely to miss a shot with the prime, but that wasn't enough to deter me.

The thing is if you have so much lowlight primes and you suddenly work with a zoom, that you start thinking there is something wrong with your lens if you cannot getyour aperture back to f1.4
I wouldn't buy a 24-70 2.8L MK I anymore, the Tamron is almost on par with the 24-70 2.8LII concerning sharpness + it has VR, only the backward zoom is awkward.

gabebalazs wrote in post #17839456
shooting at 2.8 on FF still gives a nice shallow DoF, if not super artistic

Good remark to consider keeping the f2.8 zoom, in fact zooming in to 70mm for a close-up will have an even more shallow DoF/nicer bokeh thanks to the zooming, which the prime cannot do.

I had a sharp copy of the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC before I had the Canon 24-70 2.8 II. I did like the Tamron too, but once I started to get seriously into wedding and event photography, I sold the Tamron and bought the Canon when I saw a good deal on the Canon. The Tamron is really good but the Canon is just a hair sharper and a bit faster focusing. Also, after a while I found that I rarely used the VC on the Tamron. At weddings and events my shutter speed always had to be at a speed where the VC was redundant.
Still, I consider the Tamron a very very good lens and captured great memories with it.

i bought the tamron for wedding work as well. I wouldn't shoot a wedding without it. I use primes for the creative and formals, but i'd never shoot a ceremony/reception with a fixed focal length. I'll echo that the VC on this lens is also no real use for me either since i usually use it with a speedlight at 1/160 or im cranking the ISO to avoid subject blur with out the speedlight.

it does however focus very close to the front element for creative detail shots and ring shots if you dont have a macro lens.

I have the tamron 24-70 VC and I use it for weddings, especially doing some formals or large group. I think that's pretty much it. I don't usually use it any other time during the day. In fact there were weddings that I didn't use it at all. However, this is one focal length that I think it'll be in my bag even though I don't use it much.

The 35L sees alot of usage along with the 85, 70-200 and 16-35.

Indeed, only 'a hair' sharper for almost €1000 more expensive for the Canon, this wouldn't make the difference for me to switch, i rather have the VC then (also for movies interesting).
http://www.lightandmat​ter.org …loads/2013/04/8​3A3192.jpg

gabebalazs wrote in post #17844695
I sold the Tamron and bought the Canon when I saw a good deal on the Canon. The Tamron is really good but the Canon is just a hair sharper and a bit faster focusing

i dont shoot weddings but I do like shooting people and anytime there is more than two people it just seems that I dont really want to go with such a large aperture when shooting with a ff camera. Im just wondering how wedding shooters feel about this?

I need an wide lense, but not so wide as the 18-35 I have.
The 18-35 is good for landscape and so, but I need one for group shoots.

I have the older Nikon 50 1.4D but in small spaces its too tight.
Im looking at an 24-70 but the Nikon one is expensive and Im not sure if the Tamron one has fast enough AF.

Im also looking at the Sigma 35Art, but maybe the 18-35 is good enough at 35mm.

Sharpness wise, according to dxomark, the Tamrom 27-70VR and the "old" Nikon 24-70 is more or less the same, on an D800

How fast do you need autofocus to be for group shots

elitejp wrote in post #17869553
How fast do you need autofocus to be for group shots

Not very fast :P
But I aslo do not know how slow AF is then people says the AF is slower than say Nikon :P

As some above have said, the 24-70 and 70-200 are my general "go to" lenses for weddings due to their flexibility. I'm looking to upgrade the 24-70 to the Mk2 soon.

I also have the 35 Art but, unlike some above, I make quite a lot of use of it at weddings too, but specifically during bridal prep in the mornings and dance/disco in the evening, if I'm covering that.