You could help me if you photog with primes

Well I have been photographing weddings for a short time (2 years) and my lineup, using a 5D, is...

17-40L 50mm1.8 24-70L 70-200L

So today I decided to make the move to more primes. But something happened on the way to the forum. As I was filling out my FS:24-70 thread, I decided to get some pictures from one of my last weddings to show. But turns out that a good number of the reception pictures I was choosing where in the 24-70 range. Now its got me wondering.

I would like to hear from those with a similar experience of making the move from zooms to primes (or at least more primes, my 17-40 stays).

What effect did it have on your shooting? As a prime shooter, do you rely on a second camera more? Given what I have and what I am getting rid of, what primes would you buy given the value of a 24-70.

BTW: I do have a 28-135 of outdoors.

I wouldn't sell the zooms right away, rent a prime or two and see how you like them. With primes a 2nd body with another lens on it can come in really handy, changing lenses all the time is a PITA. I'm not a prime shooter so I can't help, but there's quite a few threads like this on a professional forum i'm a member of.

tim wrote in post #8673031
..... changing lenses all the time is a PITA. ....

Hi Tim, Thanks

Certainly it could be a pain. If I sell, my hole is between 40 and 70. So if I took the 17-40 and had it on a crop then its 27.2-64. So I could have the 17-40 on a crop and the 70-200 on the 5D. When I need the super wide on move it over. But wait I lost the 2.8! And where do I put the primes.

Maybe the ideal is 5 primes and 5 bodies. That would be fun to carry.

If you only have one body currently then a second body should be numero uno on the list of items your gonna buy next.

I cant imagine shooting a wedding without my 24-70+5D MKII, I have a 50mm f1.4 but the 24-70 is still my most used lens by a long long way. I do wish I used my 50mm more though because the shallow DOF on a 5D is very nice for some shots, I just don't enjoy changing lenses much or swapping between 3 cameras ... I carry two bodies with the third body staying in the car unless I have an issue... cant imagine trying to carry 5 !

If I were you (and I was shooting weddings), I'd get a second body. Then I'd sell the 24-70, 50 1.8, and 70-200 and buy the 24L, 50L, and 135L. I did almost that exact thing and have LOVED every second of it.

I also had zero trouble going from zooms to primes. It was an instant fit for me.

But again, that's me

Bobby, one look at your pics would tell anyone it was an instant fit for you .

As for the OP my inclination would be to say that if you don't already know what focal lengths you would want in primes you might be better off with the zoom. (I'm not a wedding photographer, just throwing my 2 cents in)

I'll echo the earlier statements about a second body. Aside needing one for insurance, it helps minimize the need to change. I have a 5D2 and 50D. Given that one is FF and the other 1.6, I can work with just the 35 and 85. Put them on the crop body and I kinda also have a 50 and a 135.

All that said, as wonderful as these lenses are to work with, I'll still shoot the vast majority of the day with my 24-70. These lenses come out mostly for dark churches and portraits of the couple.

Why limit yourself? There's nothing wrong with shooting with zooms AND primes in your lineup. It'll keep you equipped to handle more situations easily. I never understood why many people feel they have to make a "switch" to a prime shooter.

What on earth is wrong with shooting with both? I use both zooms and primes a LOT through the day, biased towards neither side really. With your huge choice of focal lengths, your creative and technical restrictions are few and the variety you can provide can be greater, especially when zooms and mixed with primes.

I don't know if it's a matter of the OP limiting himself as much as it's hard for most to afford an L prime set up AND and L zoom set up.