UWA or a prime?

I am getting rid of some lenses and looking to get a new one. I will be getting rid of my 50mm 1.8 and possibly my Tamron 70-300 VC.

That would leave me with 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 2.8. I am doing some weddings and need/want another lens.

Trying to decide between a Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 II Nevermind this one.. found out it is only for ASP-C. Have to find a different UWA or a prime. Maybe 35mm f/1.4 Sigma art lens (this would be at the EXTREME top of my budget). However, I feel that I can get decent shots at 35mm with my f/4 lens, but I have nothing to give me some good environmental shots that I see done with wide angle lenses such as the 16-35mm lens.

I am pretty much done with 50mm lenses until I can pony up some cash for the 1.2L. They all seem to have issues -_-.

What do you think?

I would check the images you've taken in the past year or so and see what your primary focal lengths are, that should point you in the right direction if you're settling for a prime. If you're looking for a wide angle, take a look at the 17-40. Those can be had in the $550 - $600 range used on the forums.

You need a station wagon or a two-seat coupe? Horses for courses. Only you know the course.

I am asking for people who have been into doing weddings, what to them, would be more useful. I know I would probably get more use out of the 35mm lens... BUT I do already have 35mm covered with my 24-105. The UWA lenses are very specialized, but would be nice to have for pictures like the following: http://snapknot.com …g-a-wedding-photographer/

EF 35mm f/2 IS is two stops faster than your 24-105. It is also quite sharp (read: useable) at f/2.

I don't do weddings. In your price range I'd go with the Sigma 35Art or Canon 35IS (if you wanted a fast/fast-ish prime).

For zooms, if I was doing weddings (even with flash use), I'd rather have f/2.8 zooms. I would rather sell the 24-105L with the other two lenses mentioned and pick up a Tamron 24-70VC. Then if still wanting an UWA zoom in the future, save for the 16-35L II.

jimewall wrote in post #16675861
For zooms, if I was doing weddings (even with flash use), I'd rather have f/2.8 zooms.

This... What i'm about to say doesn't necessarily meet your criteria right this second, however, it could be something to consider longer term if you're going to shoot more weddings... I'd personally swap your 24-105 f4 for a 24-70 2.8 (whether is be Canon mk1 or Tamron) - then at least you've got 24-200 @ 2.8.

Then if you want a couple of primes, I'd go for the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art and the Canon 85mm f1.8 USM - they're a great budget pairing.

Having said that... the 35/85 pair is great on FF, and I see you have 1 FF and 1 crop. So it might be worth you considering the 50mm f1.4 to replace your 50mm f1.8, which is the same fov on your 60d as the 85mm would be on FF. I know you said you're done with 50s until you can afford the L, but I much preferred the 1.4 to the 1.8. If you haven't tried it, you might surprise yourself.

Whatever you do choose to do, make sure you're not in a situation where f4 is your fastest lens below 70mm... you wouldn't want to walk into a dark church and have to deal with slow shutter speeds or super-high ISOs. Even f2.8 can leave you short on occasions.

Just a note: UWAs and primes are not mutually exclusive.

As far as what I'd do...

I love 35mm lenses on FF. A faster 35 has the ability to get you more subject isolation than your 24-105. While this may not be a big deal with staged photos, there are times that you'll want to minimize the distractions of a busy BG while still providing the context of a 35mm FoV.

ugh. red rings do not better images make. or something like that.

if bridezillas are your target, the sweet and simple solutions are the 35mm f/2 (non-IS, non-USM) - all it does is capture great images (in capable hands), and the (formerly) beloved 85mm f/1.8 (not the red ringed cash grabber).

side benefit - for about $500, you would then have 2 very useful lenses for any subjects.