The age-old zoom vs. prime debate...

I shoot mostly weddings and portraits. Current setup is a 6D with a Tamron 28-75 and 50mm STM. I rent the rest but am looking at another lens and after much waffling it has come down to the 70-200 f/4 IS and the original 35L. Both are around the same price used. After looking at sample images from both I've determined that both have stellar image quality, but owning both right now is out of the question. Some feedback would be appreciated.

this isn't really a zoom or a prime debate...they're entirely different focal lengths...get the 70-200mm if you feel like you come up short...if you're fine with your length, grab the 35mm

I suggest 70-200 f4 whoever owns it usually considers it his favorite lens. F2.8 people will be here soon and parade how you can't shoot with an F4 indoors. So take it for its worth.

35 isn't that much wider than 50, i'd suggest 24 prime down the road for wider shots.

I am not a photog but keen observer and have seen a number of pros with 24Ls in their bags.

Good luck with your decision.

The only advice I can offer is buy everything. Works for me.

I have all primes and a 70-200.
Why adding another lens in the 28-75 range ? Get the 70-200 first, because you are currently limited to 75mm, so extending the range should be your priority.

When you have the money, get the 35L and maybe sell the 28-75 to finance a 21 or 24 (if you don't need the zoom flexibility).

You're right dredaze, it isn't really a debate...except with myself lol but I appreciate the feedback guys!

Talley wrote in post #18228283
The only advice I can offer is buy everything. Works for me.

Truer words were never spoken.

A 70-200 f/4 zoom is a bit slow for wedding work with available light, unless you are using a 5DIV which has high ISO performance with minimal noise.
You could consider a tele lens like 150mm f/2.8 or 200 f/2.8

For wedding ceremonies, I use two (FF) bodies with 70-200 on one and 24-105 on the other. About half-way through the reception, I switch from the long lens to a 17-40 (still with the 24-105).

My 70-200 is the 2.8 version. And yeah, I do like having that larger aperture. And yeah, low light is one reason. But the DOF control and being able to separate the subject(s) from the background just a bit more is what I prefer.

For the other lens (24-105), the "standard" is supposed to be 24-70/2.8. I'm shooting with a lens that is one stop slower (f/4), and is not as sharp. Regarding the slower stop, it's (only) one stop difference. Have I hit situations where that one stop would make the difference? Well, yeah. But sensor noise on the 5D3 has been pretty good, and noise reduction in post-processing is also pretty good. Plus, I still recall when trying to do this with film and films were incredibly slow compared to what you get with digital ISO's these days.

What I really enjoy is having a bit of focal length overlap between the two bodies/lenses. When things are moving quickly (like in a wedding), having that extra bit of reach is nice. It only takes a few seconds to switch from one body to another, but if I don't have to switch bodies I can remain in the element and even more subtle.

Back to the longer lens... Obviously, I've already "compromised" on my standard range zoom with f/4. Why not go with f/4 on the long zoom. It comes back to that separation and DOF control.

Finally, my wide angle that I use during the candids is the 17-40. Again, it's another f/4 lens. Why not the 16-35? I've had the 17-40 longer than the 16-35 has been out. If I were starting now, would I consider the 16-35 over the 17-40? Yes. Which aperture, f/2.8 or f/4? Honestly, I'd have to go back to the reviews and check again. There are sharpness differences between the Mk I and Mk II versions. But in any case, having IS on the 16-35 is the bigger reason to consider it over the 17-40 (no IS).

In the meantime, I more enjoy having the wide-angle zoom (17-40) and being able to use it than spending time worrying about the lens that I don't have (16-35). There will (maybe?) be a time for that in the future.

So, there it is. Three zooms. More overlap in the focal lengths than the "standard" trifecta and a stop slower, but it still works and I actually prefer it.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I use flash a lot. I can't in every situation, and rarely use it during the actual ceremony, but I've really taken the time to learn flash (and multiple flashes). The f/2.8 vs. f/4 is less of an issue.

I would rather shoot a wedding with 4 5D4 cameras each with a prime rather than a single or dual camera w/ two of the workhorse 2.8 zooms (24-70/70-200).

But thats when it gets uber expensive but that is just me. I'd shoot them all in M mode w/ auto ISO and each camera would be synced all other settings. If I were to throw the stobes then I would manually select my ISO and use TTL on the strobes.

Get a 85 1.8 and a 135L instead. Thank me later.

Wilt wrote in post #18228753
A 70-200 f/4 zoom is a bit slow for wedding work with available light, unless you are using a 5DIV which has high ISO performance with minimal noise.
You could consider a tele lens like 150mm f/2.8 or 200 f/2.8

I hear this advice a lot. Perhaps it matters in a few cases, but to my mind if f/4 is too slow, f/2.8 is borderline. For the price of an f/2.8 zoom, I can buy several really good primes. I did a family wedding recently. I did some church & reception work with the 6D/135L/35IS. Most of it was wide open (f/2) and ISO 3200-6400 on a 6D. I don't see f/2.8 helping anything here.

EDIT:
I've tried a few f/2.8 zooms. Tamron 24-70 VC, Tokina 11-20, Sigma 70-200 OS. I saw no magic in any of them. Then again, I've got a closet full of primes to go to: 28 1.8, 35 IS, 50 STM, 85 1.8, 100 macro, 135L, 200 2.8L II. You certainly can't buy all of those for the price of one f/2.8 zoom.

Bassat wrote in post #18228936
I hear this advice a lot. Perhaps it matters in a few cases, but to my mind if f/4 is too slow, f/2.8 is borderline. For the price of an f/2.8 zoom, I can buy several really good primes. I did a family wedding recently. I did some church & reception work with the 6D/135L/35IS. Most of it was wide open (f/2) and ISO 3200-6400 on a 6D. I don't see f/2.8 helping anything here.

THIS!
When you need light one stop isn't going to do it 90% of the time. Last wedding I shot I used the 70-200 2.8 II in the chapel and the photos STILL needed more light.
I'd much rather have my 35/85/135 primes. Plus they are TONS lighter and carrying 2 rigs in a sling is not bad, even after a 10 hour day.

My policy on buying primes is to get at least two stops over my zoom. I made an exception for the 200 2.8L II. It is only one stop faster than my 70-200, but makes a nice light, small, and black, tele lens and takes a 1.4X TC (280mm f/4) well enough to shoot sports with the combo.

The F4 vs F2.8 thing gets kinda old... but in low light venues such as baptisms when your shooting 1/125 and your at F1.4 with ISO 3200 means your doing a heck alot better than 12,800 or 25,600 and there is sometimes when flash is simply not an option.

Pick your ISO is my philosophy.