Ditch the Brick?

This is pretty much directed to those of you that shoot primes and used to use a 24-70. I've come to the realization that I really only use my 24-70 on the wide end since a 50mm is on my 5d most of the time, I also use a 85 if I want to get in tight. I mainly shoot weddings, portraits and live music photography. I've been eyeing a 35L for a while now and I'm about to pull the trigger on it but as of today I've kinda had the thought of ditching the 24-70 and getting both the 24L and the 35L. One of the main reasons is that I've also been doing alot of video and it's quickly becoming something I am looking at adding to my business as an offering, and primes just work better for that type of work.

So what do you guys think? Should I ditch the 24-70 and replace it with the 24/35 combo? Any of you done this with regrets?

I can't speak to the value primes offer from a video perspective as I don't shoot video, but I can't imagine shooting a wedding without the 24-70.

When I say I can't imagine not having it for a wedding, what I really mean is the reception. I'm typically primes for the bride's preparations, the ceremony, and usually the portraits, too. But come the reception, I'm reacting to a lot of action happening around me and sometimes I want to be wide and sometimes I want to be tight, all on a moments notice. Sometimes, I'm going around the room doing couple shots at the table so a 50 or 85 is the right lens, right? But then, spontaneously, a really big group comes together for a picture. It's great to be able to meet that need with a spin of the zoom ring.

What I do dislike about zooms is the consistency (or lack there of) of focus accuracy across a zoom range. I love my 35 and 85 but also think about adding a 24 and maybe even a 14 and going all primes and make this problem go away.

I suppose I could get the job done with only primes in my bag. Also, I could always just keep two bodies on me at a reception. BUT, the 24-70 is real nice to have for that portion of the day.

BTW, if my focus were music or portraits where I have more control and a bit more time, I absolutely would go prime.

Let me preface this by saying that I've never owned the 24-70, I know those people are the ones that you really want to hear from but I am definitely an all prime shooter. I have a 17-40 that I use for receptions but I am really only using that because I like to shoot wide dancing shots. I think you'll be very happy with the 24/35 combo, and since you also have an 85 to use with them I highly doubt you will ever miss that 24-70.

24 and 35 are very close together, do you really need both? Also I know I need wider lenses than 24 at times, I wouldn't be without something wider, especially for huge group shots and insurance for rainy days in small locations.

I use mostly zooms, for the speed and flexibility. I wouldn't like to have to change lenses to change my perspective all the time. I don't often need wider apertures than F2.8 on full frame.

Overall I suggest you keep the 24-70 and get the prime you think you'd use the most.

While I mostly use my primes, I would never ditch my 24-70.

tim wrote in post #11302238
24 and 35 are very close together, do you really need both?

I had debated going the 16-35 route but the main reasoning for the 24 is not only for wider shots but also for use on my glidecam..

Peacefield wrote in post #11301277
I can't speak to the value primes offer from a video perspective as I don't shoot video, but I can't imagine shooting a wedding without the 24-70.

.

Seriously. I am considering going all primes, save for my 24-70. Having a midrange zoom is invaluable at a wedding IMO.

Im using my 24-70 less and less, but Im glad I have it. Most the time I am a second shooter so it isnt the biggest deal, but even when I shoot mains I try to keep primes on.

I dont find it all that difficult to switch lenses, and for receptions I like walking around with my 50mm. It can get me a good picture of a couple people, and when the whole table comes together, I just switch to my 28. It seems to work fine so far.

Sold my 28-70L 2.8 for primes. One of the best decisions I made.

bnlearle wrote in post #11303954
I do a fair amount of video with my set up (steadicam merlin instead of a glidecam) and I used to own a 24-70

not to hijack the tread... but say i got that steadicam, what else do I need to hook up dslr to it?

sctbiggs wrote in post #11306355
not to hijack the tread... but say i got that steadicam, what else do I need to hook up dslr to it?

Nothing, it comes with everything needed.. you would probably want to get a quick release plate, otherwise you're stuck screwing and unscrewing your camera on and off the platform..

I have the older 28-70 and I can't imagine doing a wedding without. That lens lives on my camera.

I"m looking to add a 24L to my gear, but my husband will keep his 24-70. We're both curious to see if our gear evolution moves to all primes; I LOVE(!!) my new 85 1.2II and my macro 100mmL and I'm thinking I'll end up with a 24L, 50L, 85L and my 70-200 (which I can't imagine losing).

Michelle Brooks Photography wrote in post #11308070
I"m looking to add a 24L to my gear, but my husband will keep his 24-70. We're both curious to see if our gear evolution moves to all primes; I LOVE(!!) my new 85 1.2II and my macro 100mmL and I'm thinking I'll end up with a 24L, 50L, 85L and my 70-200 (which I can't imagine losing).

Get a 135, it will be really easy to imagine loosing the 70-200.

tjames wrote in post #11301039
Should I ditch the 24-70 and replace it with the 24/35 combo? Any of you done this with regrets?

I would (and did long ago), but that's me. No regrets at all.