All-prime setup has been a fail, so lens rethink needed

So I tried shooting a couple of events with a 35mm f/2 IS and 85mm 1.8 combination. Didn't go very well. 85mm was surprisingly not used as often as I thought. I could probably get away with 35mm for 80% of what I need to shoot, but I REALLY missed the versatility of a zoom.

So I think my ideal setup for shooting events is a zoom plus a fast prime. I am thinking of "upgrading" a bit, and within budget constraints, these would be the options:

(1) 24-70 f/2.8 II + 50mm 1.4 - I don't think I'd keep the 35mm if I get this 24-70, the 1-stop difference probably wouldn't help much. I'd ideally like to get a 1.4 lens in this scenario, and the 50mm would be the only one that fits the budget.

(2) 24-105 + 35mm 1.4 L - So keep my 24-105, upgrade the f/2 for the L lens.

(3) 24-105 + 35mm f/2 IS - keep equipment as-is, pocket the extra dough I'd spend.

I have to admit I dont get the appeal of an all prime setup for event work. I dont love 50 so package #1 wouldn't work for me I would ammend it so I got the 24-70 2.8 and keep the 85. The reason for the 24-70 over the 24-105 would be low light performance obviously but also that extra stop of light when doing subtle flash balancing.

I would go for option 3. Unless you are going to be shooting at f1.4, the 35 f2 IS is about as good for less dough. The 24-70 II is a great lens for events, but it is expensive and heavy. I would pass on the 50 f1.4.

I would go for (1). I know I probably stand alone here, but I've owned the 24-105 twice and tried to like it but failed both times.

The photos out of the 24-70 II just have a lot more pop to them. It's the first zoom I've had (and I've had a few L zooms) that can really match a prime in terms of image quality IMO. I actually bought the 24-70 to replace my sigma 35mm f1.4 art. I just never really got on well with a 35mm prime as a focal length (again, I know, I'm weird and the rest of the world loves a 35mm prime).

I briefly owned the 24-70v2, and have owned the 24-105 for several years. I liked the 24-70v2, but it just wasn't $1500 beter than the 24-105. Frankly for events, the 24-105 gets used the vast majority of the time for me; I have a 35/2, 85/1.8, and 135/2 and a rarely use them. Truthfully, a 24-105 and 70-200 would give you a lot more capability

I'm going to throw the OP a curve...get the 24-70 and KEEP the 85. Perhaps trade the 85 (and 35) for the 135 f2L (there's something 'magical' about 135 wide open on a full frame body). My reasoning is that keeping the 35 you have (and 50) is redundant with the 24-70ii, which has outstanding IQ. With the 6D, the extra stop isn't an issue. I shoot my 5Diii at ISO 10000 without hesitation. Why keep the 85? Because it extends the range of what you have with the 24-70. Also, you may have unfairly 'judged' your use of the 85 having only the 35 to pair with it.

Get the 24-70 f2.8 for zoom and pair it with the 135L for longer FL and portraits.
Or the opposite idea, keep the 35mm you already have and get the 70-200 f2.8 for a zoom.
It depend on your style which range of zoom suits you better.

bratkinson wrote in post #17219313
I'm going to throw the OP a curve...get the 24-70 and KEEP the 85. Perhaps trade the 85 (and 35) for the 135 f2L (there's something 'magical' about 135 wide open on a full frame body). My reasoning is that keeping the 35 you have (and 50) is redundant with the 24-70ii, which has outstanding IQ. With the 6D, the extra stop isn't an issue. I shoot my 5Diii at ISO 10000 without hesitation. Why keep the 85? Because it extends the range of what you have with the 24-70. Also, you may have unfairly 'judged' your use of the 85 having only the 35 to pair with it.

Oh, I'm keeping the 85, I like it.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17218579
I have to admit I dont get the appeal of an all prime setup for event work. I dont love 50 so package #1 wouldn't work for me I would ammend it so I got the 24-70 2.8 and keep the 85. The reason for the 24-70 over the 24-105 would be low light performance obviously but also that extra stop of light when doing subtle flash balancing.

I like this. I don't like to overlap focal lengths like you are suggesting. One of the last weddings I 32nd shot I had a 24-70 2.8 II on one body and a 85 1.2 on the other body. That was a great mix.

Do you miss a standard zoom or just a zoom?
On a FF I would personally take one of those options:

- 16-35/4.0L IS | 85/1.2L II
- 24-70/2.8L II | 135/2.0L
- 35/1.4A | 70-200/2.8L II

I do like the first option the most, but I do really need a wide angle lens. And a UWA zoom is in my opinion much more versatile then a standard zoom.

i have to agree about the wide angle zoom covering the lower focal lengths.
especially since you are doing so much work with the 35f2IS, I see no reason to change it unless you can identify more exactly what you missed.

I could suggest:
24-70 v2 + 85 of some sort +/- 70-200
16-35 + 24-105 (assuming you can deal with f4)
35 f2IS + 70-200

I'm in my element using a 16-35L f/2.8 mk2 and depending on how large the venue I'll use an 85L, 70-200 on a second body. I do stay within the 24-35mm range and get neat perspectives with the 16mm. This is a good example of NOT buying a 16-35 f/4 is for events work if you need faster glass to stop action with faster shutter speeds.

If you want normal wide the 24-70Lmk2 is going to be extremely useful. I do like the "normal" perspective look. Of coarse your trying to capture emotion and perfectly composed frames. Sometimes I feel 24mm is wide enough but with the 16-35mm I can always crop and create similar "looks" of a 24mm by cropping.

Choose the best tools to fit your needs now. Eventually you'll build your tools for specific scenario's.

What i find is there are times f/2.8 is plenty fast for events while f/4 may push the use of higher ISO. However for indoor dark venues when you require flash the 24-105L is going to be a great tool. My only concern for "me" is if i can use f/2.8 in a "decent lit environment" for an event I truly appreciate the prime like qualities of the 24-70Lmk2. 16-35Lmk2 also has incredible IQ and extremely sharp but not on par with the micro contrast of the 24-70Lmk2.

35mm is not wide enough all of the time in certain situations at an event.

If you are predominantly using flash in your event work, or keeping aperture above f4 to keep small groups in focus, then the 24-105 makes good sense to save a lot of money. In this scenario, keep the 35 f2 IS.

If you are ambient shooting, then the 24-70 II will most likely be a better investment, despite the higher cost. In this scenario, pair with the 85, unless you really need a 50 f1.4. You probably wouldn't miss the 35 - I have both 24-70II and 35 f2 IS, and have to remind myself to take out and use the 35.

Canon 24-70 v2 + Canon 85 1.8
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC (If you can take the weight)

Since I bought the 24-70, I don't use my 40mm or 50mm and need to sell them.

Why making it so difficult, there's only one option : Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC (I had it but I switched to the 35 1.4 Art as i'm a prime lover)

If I would ever buy a standardzoom it would be this one again, almost as sharp as the 24-70 II and the only 24-70 with VC, great lens, don't underestimate it or listen to rumours about AF or quality talk. Just test it and if it's great like my copy, your settled!

If you want a prime on top, get a cheap 50 1.4 on top.