I have my set up of 2 bodies of one with 35 and the other with 85, do you guys use the same set up most of the times? Or do you prefer the zooms go to work? 24-70 / 70-200 / 16-35?
I have always used primes from day one. But after five years and with the cameras getting so good and the zooms getting so much better, Im thinking of switching to picking up a 24-70 to use on during parts of the day where I know I will not need the speed of primes. Keep them in the bag for portraits and lighten the load to help me through out the day.
Agree with Jer. I dumped my 24L and moved to the 24-70II. Amazing lens. I kept my 35, 50 & 85 for those intimate moments when I need <2.8. I just never shot that open with the 24.
My 24-70 mk II has taken the place of many of my primes. However I still shoot all the prep and pre-ceremony shots with my 35 + 85 combo. I switch to the zooms for the ceremony, formals and reception.
I love my 24-70 but I also love my 85 (just for different things). I am thinking of investing in a Sigma 35 because I do love what less then f2 can do in certain situation. (I'm a lens whore and would keep all of my lenses even if I purchased the 35mm). I haven't considered a 24mm just because of the distortion I keep hearing about.
DmitriM wrote:
The difference between 1.4 and 2.8 is shooting at ISO 3200 1.4 1/125 VS ISO 6400 2.8 1/80
Although this is true, the 1.4 variety of lens do not always focus faster or even more accurately than the f2 or 2.8 variety due to the massive amounts of glass that need to be moved by the AF system. So pick your poison. If you can use OCF at your location then the whole ISO/f-stop combo becomes a mute point.
I love the look and compression that a longer lens gives me so I shot lots with the 70-200 and principally live in the 150-200mm range on the lens. I have the Nikon 85 1.4G lens and it is a real beauty but my 70-200 will hands downs out focus it in low lighting. Therefore, my 85 hardly sees the light of the day or should I say the light of the reception.
I would love to reduce the weight of my gear and I'm hoping that the mirrorless revolution will continue to evolve to the point that I could use one in any lighting situation like you can with a superb DSLR.
I'm toying with adding the Sigma 35 1.4 this winter to reduce weight but then I would have to also add a decent 50 to cover my 24-70 range so I although I reduce the weight of my camera set-up I loose bag space by having two lenses instead of one.
I shot all prime for the first 5-6 years of my career. I'm glad I did because it taught me what the different focal lengths/categories could do. Now I shoot all zoom (I have some primes as backup, hardly ever used). When you are shooting primes you tend to tilt to fit the scene into the lens. You tend to have sloppier edges and messier backgrounds (on average, YMMV). My work is infinitely cleaner because I can crop and perfect the framing in camera. Some people say zooms make you lazy which is really just a choice. There are times you can't or shouldn't move around as much and having zooms allows you to kill the coverage and stay low-profile.
As far as weight is concerned it goes both ways. You can shoot with lighter, prime lenses but then you usually need 2 cameras or extra lenses to switch between. So much of the time you carry the same amount of weight, it just depends on how you distribute it.
Shallow DOF is great for portraits but I tend to find that for more candid coverage clients generally want to see the people in the photo, not just half of one subject's eyelash or whatever ends up in focus. The more I focused on candid, relationship-based content the more I started stopping-down to capture the whole "story".
I usually shoot 1 camera with a zoom (24-70, 24-120 or 70-200). Occasionally I'll use a 28 1.8 for a detail shot, or a 180mm prime as a portrait lens to complement one of the wide zooms. I use a 50mm prime when traveling to keep things simple.
Simple story is that I learned a ton shooting prime only, and then my work got infinitely more refined by switching to zooms after.
MRomine wrote:
Although this is true, the 1.4 variety of lens do not always focus faster or even more accurately than the f2 or 2.8 variety due to the massive amounts of glass that need to be moved by the AF system. So pick your poison. If you can use OCF at your location then the whole ISO/f-stop combo becomes a mute point.
24L II or 35mm 1.4 lenses focus really really fast even in very dark conditions.
I bought Sigma 35mm Art a few weeks back and shot about 10 sessions with it already(weddings plus engagements) and it is also an awesome lens that focuses really fast.
I do not have any experience with 24-70L II,but I have the v1 and it wasn't a good lens at all(it didn't focus as well as say 24L had more oof shots and wasn't that sharp either(I tried 3 copies)
I like zooms and my second camera has 70-200L that never comes off. If 24-70L II had IS, I think I'd switch.
Maybe Sigma will release it shortly.
DmitriM wrote:
24L II or 35mm 1.4 lenses focus really really fast even in very dark conditions.
I've not owned any the ultra fast wides only the Canon 85 1.2 and Nikon 85 1.4 and while both of them have suburb optics they were real dogs when it came to focus speeds and the ability to acquire focus lock in low light.
I have no issues with the 35L, but I'm considering making the move to a 24-70II partly because I want more variety in the mid-range, and 35mm can be limiting in tight spaces.
In terms of light, anything under 2.8 and I'm rolling the dice on focus. If it's that dark, I'll bounce an on-camera flash @ 2.8 - at least the image will be sharp.
Try the mark II L - as someone who
Lead you to the 35 sigma, trust me.
DmitriM wrote:
24L II or 35mm 1.4 lenses focus really really fast even in very dark conditions.
I bought Sigma 35mm Art a few weeks back and shot about 10 sessions with it already(weddings plus engagements) and it is also an awesome lens that focuses really fast.
I do not have any experience with 24-70L II,but I have the v1 and it wasn't a good lens at all(it didn't focus as well as say 24L had more oof shots and wasn't that sharp either(I tried 3 copies)
I like zooms and my second camera has 70-200L that never comes off. If 24-70L II had IS, I think I'd switch.
Maybe Sigma will release it shortly....Show more →
I use a 24-70, but ideally, I'd have some primes as well. For me, it's very much about the amount of weight I like to carry. The 24-70 is flipping heavy and I'd love to shed that weight and use a wide prime for just dancing and an 85 for portraits.
