What about 35 & 58 combo , 58 was the missing link for me.
85 felt always akward and difficult if not impossible to use for my type of shooting, never used a 24-70.
gx24: you mean the 50L correct? I had the same experience, took forever to buy one but once I did it was like the missing link that bridged the gap from 35L to 85L.
We have a 24-70 but I find it boring, I only use it when I need to.
I used to be an all-zoom shooter until I kept finding myself in darker and darker hotel rooms, venues, and reception halls. I now use the 24/35/85 trio and prefer the simplicity and creatively it makes me have over a 10-hour day. I still use my 70-200, but that's mainly for portraits, ceremonies, and large reception halls.
I also have the nikon 50 f1.4g, that I never use, the main reason : the bokeh in the transition zones at f1.4 can get very ugly and everything looks flat.
The 58 worth the money the same way the top 24, 35 , 85 are. The bonus of the 58 its the weight.
I'm also rocking a 58/1.4 now. I used to do 24/1.4 and 85/1.4G, but the 85's a bit too tight in rooms. The 58's better and I don't mind losing a bit of compression by taking 2-3 steps in. Bokeh's as pretty, with maybe more character. And it's pretty sharp stopped down to f/4.
And in lieu of the 85, I'm using a 70-200/2.8G II. As a few pointed out already, shallow DOF is nice, but sometimes people just want fairly sharp photos with a bit of OOF DOF, not tons of it. When I want tons of OOF DOF, I just bring the 200/2.
@Diggler: the 58's a different lens than the 50/1.4G. The bokeh is just a lot creamier than the 3 50/1.4Gs I've owned. Love the rendering and character as well. Here's a sample from a wedding this past Sunday (second shooting) with a cropped closer up, and a shot from an e-Session the week prior to that.
There is something about zooms that never clicked with me.
I just picked up an early Version2 50mm Summilux. That sweet little lens is sharp! My 50 year old M2 is smooth! There is something about the simplicity that appeals to me, and my RF skills are improving quickly.
With only a single wedding in my future, I have the luxury of dedicating time to what has become a re-invention of sorts.
It takes a near religious conversion to master a Leica, but 28mm/50mm/90mm has always been my favored setup.
I have been struggling with this question (zoom vs primes) for a while now. I would love to shoot with my primes (Sigma 35/1.4, Canon 50/1.4. canon 85/1.8) but after a church wedding on the weekend I decided I definitely need the 28-75 Tamron zoom that I also have. I was able to move around a little during the ceremony but felt that I really made the right decision to keep the zoom on. Zoom in on the bride and groom, next second, a wide shot of the bridesmaids. Then zoom in quickly for the rings etc. I would not have been able to get all the shots with primes. Sure I could have 2 cameras on board but that also restrict my movement quite a bit and would have to keep changing cameras causing more distraction. Those who say "zoom with your feet"...may be Ok when you CAN move, but what if you are restricted in a crowded church? I also have a 70-200 for the longer shots from the back of the church. I have found the Tamron 28-75 a sharp, reliable workhorse until recently when it occasionally gives a communication error. I need to update that's why I was thinking of going all primes. I have been thinking about the newer Tamron 24-70/2.8. I am only part-time at present so can't justify the hefty priced Canon 24-70 mkII. So my decision after the recent wedding is;
Primes for getting ready,
Zooms for ceremony,
Primes for location photo-shoots (where I can move freely).
Mixture of both for reception.
I was debating about this for a while too.. But went with zooms especial the mk II nowadays... I would like to add some primes though... Probable just an 85mm
This lens started effectively to grow on me, leaving the 90% share of the 35 to about 50%
