24-70 or 35 1.4?

Having trouble deciding. I currently shoot with a 50mm 70-200 and 100mm and am wanting to go a little wider. This would be for wedding/event shooting. The 35mm has my attention mostly because of the extra stops. Give me some options for me to mull over.

90% leaning towards the 35mm....

The versatility of the 24-70 Can't be beat. Primes are great until you are space restricted and can't move to compose as needed.

I believe you need both....
the 24-70mm for back-up to fall back on if your 50mm and 35mm fails....

Totally agree but 1.4 also weighs heavy in my thoughts for those really dark receptions. I feel I already have the longer side of the 24-70 covered by my 50 and 70-200 that's what is making this so hard for me to decide.

jlstan wrote in post #18630252
Totally agree but 1.4 also weighs heavy in my thoughts for those really dark receptions. I feel I already have the longer side of the 24-70 covered by my 50 and 70-200 that's what is making this so hard for me to decide.

Those really dark receptions are what flash is for. 1.4 isn't a savior when the the resulting depth of field is too shallow and the light quality is as poor as the light quantity. Sure there will be a few shots where the 1.4 would be great, but not enough to make it your wide coverage lens.

24-70 2.8 all the way. Don’t be scared to pump up your ISO and/or use flash.

Thanks for all the great feedback totally understand the DOF limitations at 1.4 and yes flash with also be used when needed. Im starting to tip the other way towards the 24-70 . I also use a ND filter outdoors the one I use is has 77mm threads. Does anyone know if I will see any issues using a step down ring shooting at the wide side of the 24-70 with vignetting?

I looked all over Canon's web-site. I couldn't find any rule that says you can't own both. Go ahead. Indulge.

when i shot film, i owned only primes. zoom lenses at that time, really were not something most people carried due to slow speed or questionable IQ. did people buy them? yep. i sold more Nikkor AI 80-200 f4.5 lenses than i ever thought i would in the years i worked in a photo lab/camera store but it was an f4.5. and we sold it at a very low markup at $500+...

today's zoom lenses, while heavier than the old film lenses, are so much faster and more capable in my humble opinion...

i would love to shoot primes but a) theyre either really fast f1.4 which is nice, or as slow as the zoom with nothing in between and b) giant and heavy for being a prime. my FD 24, 35, 50 (f2, f2 and f1.4) are all nice short lenses, right about the same size as well. the EF 35 f1.4 is double the length...

I wouldn't be without a 24-70 for weddings. Modern cameras high ISO is amazing, you don't need F1.4 lenses for that reason any more. Razor thin DOF is more difficult to work with during rapidly changing parts of the day, it's fine when you have a bit more control.

How about the 16-35 f/2.8?

s1a1om wrote in post #18633932
How about the 16-35 f/2.8?

While an ultra wide can be useful, the tendency toward unflattering perspective distortion makes it a lot less useful except for group shots.

What about the 24-35mm f/2? It's quite heavy though.

35mm all the way. I just love shooting with a prime. The light weight is a bonus.