About to buy 4 lenses at once...

Hello, long time lurker, first time poster. Thank you in advance for your help!

I'm about to invest in some new lenses primarily for wedding photography and wanted to get everyone's opinions. I use 2 5dmkii bodies and have been using the 24-105 and the 70-200 f4 is. I have sold these F4 zooms and am ready to pick up some faster glass, here are my thoughts:

70-200 II 2.8
100 L macro 2.8
50. 1.2
17-40 F4 (might be limiting myself here, especially for group shots)

I have also being considering:

135 L (though this may be redundant with the 70-200 ii)
85 1.2 (having a hard time justifying the price, especially with the 100 L being such a similar focal length)
24 and 35 L - im thinking this might be worth the extra thousand or so especially for groups...

Awesome, good choices all around ~ nice mix.

Although you might consider the 16-35 MK II over the 17-40 or just add the 24 prime as you mentioned.

Either way ~ stellar upgrade!

Yes, the 85L II is an expensive lens but it is also about 2.5 stops faster than the 100L macro and creates more much pleasant bokeh. As for the 135L it is one stop faster than the 70-200 II and also creates much more pleasant bokeh than the zoom.

Nortog wrote in post #14141799
17-40 F4 (might be limiting myself here, especially for group shots)

If you're using it to shoot groups, you'll probably be shooting at f/4 or narrower to get enough DOF, so don't see how that would be limiting.

Also, I think I'd be considering the 24-70 rather than a 100L, 50L, 135L, 85L and a 24L or 35L.
Normally weddings are pretty fast paced which is why most wedding photographers mainly use zooms.
I'd use the 24-70 on one camera and the 70-200 on the other. I'd switch the 70-200 to the 17-40 when shooting groups.

Canon 24-70 2.8 or
24-70 II if money is no object

Canon 70-200 2.8 is II, I have version I and it's simply amazing and the other day tried version II and it's even better

If you don't need weather sealing I would go for the 50 1.4 instead of the 1.2 and you save some pretty money

Canon 100L macro for close ups and details is just incredible and the IS is very good and very useful for low light static objects and details

And with the money you save from the 50 1.2 you could spend it on version II of 24-70' or just buy 24-70 version I that is also very good and consistent and 17-40

good list, I like the 85L over the 50L.

tested the 16-35 and 17-40 here over Xmas, could find $1k worth of improvement in the 16-35. If you don't need 2/8 the 17-40 is a good choice.

bob_r wrote in post #14142134
If you're using it to shoot groups, you'll probably be shooting at f/4 or narrower to get enough DOF, so don't see how that would be limiting.

Also, I think I'd be considering the 24-70 rather than a 100L, 50L, 135L, 85L and a 24L or 35L.
Normally weddings are pretty fast paced which is why most wedding photographers mainly use zooms.
I'd use the 24-70 on one camera and the 70-200 on the other. I'd switch the 70-200 to the 17-40 when shooting groups.

This was my thought as well. 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200 plus the 100L macro (or some tubes) for the close ups.

+1 on the 24-70

Excellent stuff, I appreciate all of the responses! Decisions decisions...

I like your style, buying 4 at once.

You're not going to want to doing a lot of lens changes at a wedding, you won't have time. A favorite lens setup of Wedding shooters in the 24-70 2.8 matched to the 70-200 2.8 IS. Those two lenses will take a long way. Think flexibility and speed.

Nortog wrote in post #14141799
Hello, long time lurker, first time poster. Thank you in advance for your help!

I'm about to invest in some new lenses primarily for wedding photography and wanted to get everyone's opinions. I use 2 5dmkii bodies and have been using the 24-105 and the 70-200 f4 is. I have sold these F4 zooms and am ready to pick up some faster glass, here are my thoughts:

70-200 II 2.8
100 L macro 2.8
50. 1.2
17-40 F4 (might be limiting myself here, especially for group shots)

I have also being considering:

135 L (though this may be redundant with the 70-200 ii)
85 1.2 (having a hard time justifying the price, especially with the 100 L being such a similar focal length)
24 and 35 L - im thinking this might be worth the extra thousand or so especially for groups...

There's nothing wrong with your list at all. We each have our own preferences and ways of working.

I would definitely want a 24-70/2.8. Couldn't imagine shooting a wedding without it. I don't know that I'd wait for the new one... the original is still quite good.

And I might get the 100/2.8 USM instead of the 100L... or forego the macro lens entirely. The 24-70 is very close focusing already, and can be used with macro extension tubes effectively, if needed. The 70-200 also works well with extension tubes.

I probably would not go with the 50/1.2L initially.... It's a "yummy" lens and I like to use primes, but I would probably get 35/1.4 and 85/1.8 (or Sigma 85/1.4) instead of a 50mm.

17-40 is a toss-up... If using flash a lot, it should be fine. If wanting to shoot without flash, 16-35/2.8 might be necessary.

If the budget is getting busted, an original 70-200/2.8 IS would be almost as good as the Mark II. However, a 70-200/2.8 might be one of my least used lenses at a wedding. I might instead opt for a 135/2L (which works well with 1.4X teleconverter too).