Primes Only?

There's a thread with almost the same title just a few below mine, but he asked about what people are using. I'm asking for input (related to weddings).

I'd prefer to use three bodies and three primes over two bodies and two zooms, partially because of the investment cost (I already have primes.)

But, how important is a 70-200? Let's say I have 85 and 135. If I replace them with a 70-200, is that going to help me very much?

icor1031 wrote in post #18838862
There's a thread with almost the same title just a few below mine, but he asked about what people are using. I'm asking for input (related to weddings).

I'd prefer to use three bodies and three primes over two bodies and two zooms, partially because of the investment cost (I already have primes.)

But, how important is a 70-200? Let's say I have 85 and 135. If I replace them with a 70-200, is that going to help me very much?

I've been thinking over similar. The last wedding I did probably brought me one step closer to understanding. I didn't shoot all primes, but I shot with three bodies. One was the RF 50mm 1.2 ... another the 70-200mm 2.8 ... and third 16-35mm 4.0

The three body part worked great. But I'm not settled on whether all primes would work for me. I think I could shoot with mostly 3 primes, with one or two other lenses on hand in my bag. I somewhat like what Sigma's new 135mm offers, but much prefer the less weight of Canon's 135mm.

Having shot weddings in the days before zooms were a consideration due to IQ concerns, fixed FL lenses are great because they permit shooting in light not practical with slower zooms. But incredibly high ISO in today's digital cameras makes that no longer a significant consideration (yes high ISO iphotos are a bit noisier)
.

Shooting with zooms means that you can better frame a shot regardless of limitations in moving yourself, and regardless of the spontaneity of the action. And with quality zooms often rivaling fixed FL lenses in quality, IQ is not often a concern any more.

Wilt wrote in post #18838937
Having shot weddings in the days before zooms were a consideration due to IQ concerns, fixed FL lenses are great because they permit shooting in light not practical with slower zooms. But incredibly high ISO in today's digital cameras makes that no longer a significant consideration (yes high ISO iphotos are a bit noisier)
.

Shooting with zooms means that you can better frame a shot regardless of limitations in moving yourself, and regardless of the spontaneity of the action. And with quality zooms often rivaling fixed FL lenses in quality, IQ is not often a concern any more.

So, zooms are better.. But, are they much better?

I know 2 people that use mostly primes. One has 2 D850, usually a 24mm F1.4 and an 85mm F1.4. He also has the 14-24/24-70/70-200mm for those times when he needs it but 80% of the time he shoots everything with those 2 primes. Sometimes he will change it up a bit and use a 35mm but that is rare. My other friend only uses a 35mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.8 for her work. She has a 5d mk III and a mk II but usually only has 1 camera with her. I myself when I shot used to use my 17-50mm and 70-200mm F4L IS but anymore when I help it is basically the 35mm F1.4 and 135mm F2L on my 7D mk II but it is all personal preference.

The 70-200mm is just that lens you can count on, same with the 24-70. It isnt anything special, but it can get the shot and you can rely on it. Primes are a bit harder since you have to be much faster on your feet(literally and figuratively) at times to get things. I prefer primes but sometimes you cant do without a zoom. All depends on your style and what you are going for. A lot of the time you can get away with just primes, other times you cant.

The Fox wrote in post #18839932
I know 2 people that use mostly primes. One has 2 D850, usually a 24mm F1.4 and an 85mm F1.4. He also has the 14-24/24-70/70-200mm for those times when he needs it but 80% of the time he shoots everything with those 2 primes. Sometimes he will change it up a bit and use a 35mm but that is rare. My other friend only uses a 35mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.8 for her work. She has a 5d mk III and a mk II but usually only has 1 camera with her. I myself when I shot used to use my 17-50mm and 70-200mm F4L IS but anymore when I help it is basically the 35mm F1.4 and 135mm F2L on my 7D mk II but it is all personal preference.

The 70-200mm is just that lens you can count on, same with the 24-70. It isnt anything special, but it can get the shot and you can rely on it. Primes are a bit harder since you have to be much faster on your feet(literally and figuratively) at times to get things. I prefer primes but sometimes you cant do without a zoom. All depends on your style and what you are going for. A lot of the time you can get away with just primes, other times you cant.

Okay, you've convinced me that I really should have the 70-200. Thank you.

icor1031 wrote in post #18840231
Okay, you've convinced me that I really should have the 70-200. Thank you.

I've been leaving the 70-200mm off my cameras more lately because it has a fair amount of weight. But I enjoy it for wants like pulling the background closer to subjects. And it will pull the background a lot more than just 85mm or 135mm. I shared this photo in a couple other threads. this was the 70-200mm adjusted to 134mm, but I also got a few other frames where I stepped back a few paces and zoomed the pine trees even closer to them. I had the women stop short of the snow because they had nice shoes, and the lens helped compensate for that limitation.

Photo from mdvaden's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (968462)

Wilt wrote in post #18839648
I would prefer a used Canon flash over a new Godox. You KNOW that Canon makes a time proven well constructed unit, but you do not know with certainty how reliable and robust the Godox is. Yes, lots of folks now buy Godox for price/value. But is it like Yungnuo had over time proven itself to be in terms of reliability and service?!
The Canon was backed with post-warranty service and spare parts, the Godox has no post warranty service and no spare parts...instead, you buy yourself another unit!

icor1031 wrote in post #18838938
So, zooms are better.. But, are they much better?

'better'... in what regard?!

• zoom FL flexibility for framing and (when used along with different camera distance) it can 'pull forward' things in the background to be larger behind the subject
  ...without the time delay of switching lenses (or switching to second camera)
  

• slower max aperture makes available light shooting more problematic in low light
  
• larger (than fixed FL) max aperture increases the minimum DOF zone depth
  
• size (draws attention) and weight (makes carrying on a 10 hour shooting day more challenging
  

If you have to ask, you probably shouldn't be using all primes. Zooms give you fleixibility that I found very useful when I was at weddings. I used primes parts of the day, but eventually ended up with only the 50mm when I realized that the story telling, lighting, and relationship with your subjects is far more important to spend time on than lens choice.

icor1031 wrote in post #18840231
Okay, you've convinced me that I really should have the 70-200. Thank you.

I would say that the 70-200mm is just a lens for "I am walking in and dont know what is going on". I keep mine in my bag for those times I know primes wont work, but I try to shoot as much as I can with a prime. All depends if you shoot a lot of the same venues that you know where you can be and if a prime will work. Most of the time I have found it is primes, but there are times I cant trust it and need to fall back.

I have seen somewhere where 1 of the body attached with the 70-200mm for PJ and "moments" shots slotted behind the back lens pouch. The other two bodies are used with primes (35mm, 85mm, etc) and specialty (fisheye, makro, ultra wide angle, etc)

I am right at 600 weddings since 2007. I used to shoot all primes. I went back to a 24-70 and 85mm for 95% of my work. I just got sick and tired of switching Primes at receptions. The 24-70 just does it all. For those concerned about Bokeh....there is very little difference from 2.0 through 2.8 when shooting wide with a zoom or a 35mm......and 1.4 is almost useless for table shots. 3-4 people on the same plane is about the only place its going to be useful

My opinion is right in line with Tims..... I realized that the story telling, lighting, and relationship with your subjects is far more important to spend time on than lens choice"

clean sensors, lighting and the right moments are your key to success

Promise you 100%.....your clients could care less if its captured at 2.0 v/s 2.8 when you are shooting wide. They cant see the differences in Bokeh and neither can 95% of the people who view the results

I use the 85 or the 135 when I want shallow depth effects. I sold my 70-200 F/2.8 yrs ago. I only use a 70-200 F4 for reach needs. The new sensors let you shoot at 6400 all day long so I see little need to use a fast prime when shooting wide for weddings

thats my $$.02 cents

I use two bodies with 35 and 85 lenses for most shots. However I agree with other posts and I will switch out the 35 for a 24-70 zoom when the action or setting requires. I also use the 100 macro for close shots. I also agree that the 70-200 is versatile but a bit too heavy to carry around for other than short periods.

I think I'm going to get a 70-200 f/4, but I might try to run my prime most of the time. The f/4 is almost $1,000 cheaper than the f/2.8 I wanted... I'd probably still get an f/2.8 some day, but by the sounds of it: I'll be happy to also own the f/4, due to the weight. You've helped a lot; my business doesn't have much money right now.

Thanks for the input.

With modern ISO performance, an extra stop is nothing really anymore. I use the F4L IS and had the F2.8 at one point and I dropped it because it was really too heavy honestly. The F4 is an amazing lens and so much easier to keep with you. It isnt much bigger than my 135L.