Prime Lens Mash Up – Share Your Experiences

I'm sure there are at least 10 gear for weddings posts per day, but I hope mine is a little different.

I currently work as a full time editorial photographer for newspapers and magazines. In the past year, many of my assignments have switched from sports to portraits and stories. With the change of pace, my gear has changed from ultra wides and super telephotos to the basic 24-70/70-200.

I have also tapped into the wedding market, as I enjoy the client relationships, working with story telling images, and the pay can't be beat. I am in the process of adding a few primes to my kit for weddings and general news stories to:
1. Shoot in lower light scenarios with little/no flash,
2. Create more subject isolation with wider apertures,
3. Maintain a creative mindset,
4. Use a lighter, yet still versatile, kit,
5. Have focal length redundancy for weddings in case turds hit the fan.

With my 24-70/70-200, I have been using the inexpensive-yet-decent 28mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4. As a pair, they work great, but alone, they are odd-balls. The 28mm focal length is too wide for pretty environmental portraits but it does allow me to get in close to exaggerate items. The 50mm focal length is really versatile, but I often feel it's too loose or too tight.

I feel that I may benefit from the 35mm (less distortion) and 85mm (more compression) combo (one on each camera). My other option is 24mm, 50mm, 135mm combo. What do you think would serve me better for weddings and as a general go-light kit?

50L.

It's all you'll ever need.

I run with the 24L, 50 f/1.4, and 135L.

Love my 24L

35L and 50L are too similar. I rock a 35L + 85L + 135L and have the 100L for macros and sometimes use for wedding day pics as well.

50 is just a boring focal length to me. Not really wide, not really tight. Doesn't give you the nice compression you see at 85 or 135 so your backgrounds suffer a bit.

I have the 24L II, but it is just a bit too wide for most of the day on FF. I use it sometimes when using my 1D4.

My problem with the fifty is that it provides a rather common and mundane perspective. The key tool a photographer has (other than light) is the ability to expand or compress perspective to make familiar events seem different and fresh. The fifty, on full frame, doesnt really provide that for me.

I don't like the 50mm bashing going on here.

I happen not to like 85mm because I don't like just a smidge of compression. It looks off to me. It' stuck in limbo between normal and telephoto. 35 is like that too... being stuck between wide angle and normal as well but I actually like that length a lot.

We need to change the language. 50mm is not normal. It's natural.... and we all know natural is beautiful. That said... I would recommend OP to go the 24, 50, 135 route.

I usually shoot crop, so my prime selection is the 30, 50, and 85.

Staszek wrote in post #15783272
...I have also tapped into the wedding market, as I enjoy the client relationships, working with story telling images, and the pay can't be beat. I am in the process of adding a few primes to my kit for weddings and general news stories to:
1. Shoot in lower light scenarios with little/no flash,
2. Create more subject isolation with wider apertures,
3. Maintain a creative mindset,
4. Use a lighter, yet still versatile, kit,
5. Have focal length redundancy for weddings in case turds hit the fan.

With my 24-70/70-200, I have been using the inexpensive-yet-decent 28mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4. As a pair, they work great, but alone, they are odd-balls. The 28mm focal length is too wide for pretty environmental portraits but it does allow me to get in close to exaggerate items. The 50mm focal length is really versatile, but I often feel it's too loose or too tight.

I feel that I may benefit from the 35mm (less distortion) and 85mm (more compression) combo (one on each camera). My other option is 24mm, 50mm, 135mm combo. What do you think would serve me better for weddings and as a general go-light kit?

I dunno. I think 50mm has it's place. It's a nice length for environmental half length landscape oriented shots, which is what I probably use it for most. Award winning shots? Well, it wouldn't be my choice for that, most of my award winners are shot at 10mm (16mm FF equiv).

50mm on FF

Thread temporarily closed for repairs.

MODERATOR ADMONITION:

This thread just got a lot shorter. Any further personal attacks will result in disciplinary action, be nice or be gone.

Any time you quote a post you anything you say is personal to the person you are quoting.

We now resume our regular program already in progress.

I agree with the 50mm being the perfect natural length for that storytelling approach. The 24 or 35 are perfect for those loose candid shots, and 85 or longer for a more "professional" portrait look, but the 50 hits that sweet spot where the photos look both composed and observational at the same time. I shot an entire wedding with my 50L the other day and I would do it a hundred times over.

picturecrazy wrote in post #15784106
I usually shoot crop, so my prime selection is the 30, 50, and 85.

I dunno. I think 50mm has it's place. It's a nice length for environmental half length landscape oriented shots, which is what I probably use it for most. Award winning shots? Well, it wouldn't be my choice for that, most of my award winners are shot at 10mm (16mm FF equiv).

50mm on FF

30mm on 40D

So no, nothing award winning, but here's the catch. We're NOT trying to produce award winning images all the time. Sometimes, 50mm just does it, not because it's the best artisitic choice, but because it's just the right length to tell the story and provide enough light to get the shot:

30mm on 40D

So really, I've just based my prime setup around the lengths I need when I need the most light. Nothing really artistic in the choice, since as mentioned by other posters, you can produce fabulous art with any lens. I've talked with Susan Stripling, and she told me she likes to shoot portraits at 200mm typically around F/4. You don't need a prime for that...

I think all of those would have been much more dramatic at a wider focal length to expand the FOV, 35mm equivelant would have been perfect.

35mm is great for weddings because it gives a view people don't quite expect and it has a different feeling than a normal length.

35-50-85 for me.

I actually have a 50 only package as part of my line up for exactly the reason that it has a similar perspective to what we see. These are all on the 50.

Personally I use a 24, 50 and 85 for large parts of the day. I recently ditched the 35 and 135. The 35 shots weren't doing anything for me and I favoured using the 100 or 70-200 over my 135 that it never left the bag.

I weston I wrote in post #15784818
I think all of those would have been much more dramatic at a wider focal length to expand the FOV, 35mm equivelant would have been perfect.

35mm is great for weddings because it gives a view people don't quite expect and it has a different feeling than a normal length.

I quite disagree, 35 would make the people in the photos look distorted when shooting half length, not to mention, it would create a perceived increase of distance between the subject and background, which would make the girls in the bouquet toss look much smaller and the room emptier. Sometimes you just don't have a choice in the distance between the foreground and background.

35 is def my least favorite length, I've had three 35 primes and could never get to like them no matter how hard I tried. Ironically, you used the word "dramatic" to describe the 35, but that lens just doesn't seem to do drama for me. Its so close to a 50 but distorts people, yet is not wide enough to create a REALLY dramatic background perspective. 24mm is where you start getting that dramatic perspective. But just like I said about the 50, sometimes 35 is just the right length for the situation at hand, so in a journalistic sense, it can do a good job of storytelling. But I can't think of another prime that I would use less for an actual portrait session.

coles notes, I find both 35 & 50 boring, but at least 50 gives you more composition and posing options as it is less prone to perspective distortion.

picturecrazy wrote in post #15786331
I quite disagree, 35 would make the people in the photos look distorted when shooting half length, not to mention, it would create a perceived increase of distance between the subject and background, which would make the girls in the bouquet toss look much smaller and the room emptier. Sometimes you just don't have a choice in the distance between the foreground and background.

35 is def my least favorite length, I've had three 35 primes and could never get to like them no matter how hard I tried. Ironically, you used the word "dramatic" to describe the 35, but that lens just doesn't seem to do drama for me. Its so close to a 50 but distorts people, yet is not wide enough to create a REALLY dramatic background perspective. 24mm is where you start getting that dramatic perspective. But just like I said about the 50, sometimes 35 is just the right length for the situation at hand, so in a journalistic sense, it can do a good job of storytelling. But I can't think of another prime that I would use less for an actual portrait session.

coles notes, I find both 35 & 50 boring, but at least 50 gives you more composition and posing options as it is less prone to perspective distortion.

The 35L and the 50L both produce ~1.5% of barrel distortion. So they are virtually identical as far as that goes.

http://www.photozone.d​e …/516-canon35f14ff?start=1

http://www.photozone.d​e …72-canon_50_12_5d?start=1

So I disagree that the 50 is better because the 35 distorts people. They both have identical distortion.