do i really need the 24-70 lens if i have these ?

If you got the second body then attach one with 24-70 and the other one with 70-200 so you have. Covered all focal lengths.

That what most are working with.

<blockquote>

<p>. . . but it is an average performer. . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>24-70 is a way, way above average performer. At 2.8 it's a medium fast, not that slow, especially on today's modern hi-iso cameras. You still have your other lenses if you need 1.4, of course the DOF is extremely short at 1.4. </p>

<p>To really answer the question, here's something you could do.</p>

<p>Rent a 24 - 70 for a wedding where you are confident you can get by without it... and leave it in the bag.</p>

<p>If you get through the wedding and don't miss having the zoom, you're golden. If you go "Oh, darn, I need that zoom" and fish it out... you should have one.</p>

<p>I personally would never shoot a wedding without a mid-range zoom.</p>

<p>honestly, primes are nice but all you need for events on an FX body is 24-70+70-200. like Ilkka said,it's about not having to switch lenses. with the high-ISO capability on an FX camera, there's no need to shoot at 1.6 or 1.8. with two bodies, you can get away with a prime/zoom rotation or substituting an 85 for the 70-200. most pro shooters are in the same dilemma of wanting the 24-70 and the 24, but if you could only choose one, for events it would be the 24-70. boring choice, maybe, but solid as far as rationale. the 24-70 covers both 50 and 24mm focal lengths,obviously, so it's unclear why you are trying to "get by" with two primes and two bodies for shots you could get with just one lens and one body. does that make sense? not to me.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>yeah thats my dilemma pretty much, want versus need. and im not worried about low light or my cameras ISO, i pretty much shoot indoor photos with off camera flash the whole time anyways (unless its day time and there are lots of windows) i wouldn't try to shoot a reception at night indoors with high iso or available light (just not my thing) i will probably just stick with the 24-70 / 85 combo and then take it from there and see if i miss anything. but i will get that 24 someday (just for fun if not for weddings)</p>

<p>It's somewhat ridiculous to hear someone saying that you must have this or that lens. There are many wedding shooters that uses primes for everything or almost everything just as there are those using only zooms. Use whatever suits your style!<br>

Below are two top wedding shooters that you might have heard of - Jasmine Star and Jessica Claire:<br>

http://www.jasminestarblog.com/index.cfm?postID=1233&jasmine-star-lenses-and-camera<br>

http://jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/554/photography-tips-and-questions-1</p>

<p>Hi Britanny, I'm not a professional photographer; however I have shot a couple of weddings for friends. I have the 14-24, 85 1.4 and recently I also bought the 70-200. I've also got a 60 macro but otherwise have a big gap between 24 and 70. So I've been following this thread with interest. I can certainly see the merit of having the zoom; I'd love to have one. Personally though I'm leaning towards the 35 1.4. If I didn't have the 60 I'd probably get a 50 1.4 rather than the 35. I think you'd get better shots with the fast primes. Ideally you need an assistant to look after the second body and supplementary lenses, then lens changing is easy.</p>

<p>Brittany, I'm just curious have you looked at your files to see how often you are shooting wider than 2.8? If you are seldom wider than 2.8 that would seem to add weight in favor of the 24-70.<br>

Ray</p>

<p>Shun, camera rentals in San Francisco are *expensive* because there is no competition. In SF proper you've got Calumet, Pro Camera, and Adolph Gassers. All three have minimal inventory, and nothing terribly new (altho Gassers did get a D800). On the peninsula you've got borrowlenses.com, but they aren't exactly what most people would consider reputable.</p>

<p>OTOH if you go online, you can rent a D800E for ten (10) days from lensrentals.com for $312.50 including round trip, FedEx 2nd day air shipping. Just be careful booking a reservation too far in advance or LR will ship your package out via FedEx ground... which means significantly reduced customer service from FedEx's end.</p>

<p>Brittany, as far as I'm concerned, you are tempting fate renting from borrowlenses. I've *tried* three times to rent from them. Made a reservation, confirmed it, and then had them attempt to make inferior substitutions the day of the rental. After the first time I explained, over the phone, that I wanted to rent *specific* equipment to try it before buying it. They don't know their inventory, and judging by the substitutions they tried to make, they don't know a whole lot about photography. Ensuring that you've got a backup body of your own is very prudent, IMO, if your business is photographing events that you can't recreate.</p>

<p>IMO the way to go would be a backup body w/ a 24-70 on it... and a prime of your choosing on your main body. This way you get the best of both worlds. The flexibility of a zoom, and the big aperture of a prime. Plus, if either of the bodies or lenses craps out, you can make a fully working camera out of the remainder. A zoom on a backup body is a great insurance policy.</p>

<p>BTW, I shoot exclusively with primes (Sigma 30/1.4, Mir 24N 35/2, CV 58/1.4, Nikon 105/2.5 Ai-S)... often people... but not professionally. When I look back on my pictures, my favorite ones are often shot at an aperture that a zoom lens could achieve.</p>

<p>Brittany, I shoot weddings with two FX bodies. At present I use a D800 with the 24-70 on it and a D3s with the 70-200 on it. I use a Black Rapid system so that I can quickly drop one camera to my side and instantly grab the other from my other side. I also bring another spare body just in case since, as Shun points out, when you are being paid to shoot an important event the client expects you to have all possible bases covered. I also have a flash bracket on each body with a Nikon flash attached as well as a back-up flash in the bag. I usually have a macro lens along (105mm) and sometimes the 85mm f/1.4. Having the 24-70 and 70-200 on the two working bodies takes care of most of my shots without any lens changes and the possibility of missing a shot. I realize my setup is probably overkill, but it makes me (and usually the bride and groom) feel better. I go over my setup and procedures during the initial meeting with the couple and use it as a selling point.</p>

<p>I agree that your priority is a back up camera. Without it, you are shut down! A back up body is a very critical piece of gear if you are getting paid.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Barry C., you are actually ballasted like a diver... :) The gear you mention is well over five kilos! I`m not that strong.<br /> Ceremonies around here last -a minimum- of one and a half hour, sometimes they run into two hours (ouch!). I hope in your surroundings they are shorter!<br /> ---<br /> Pete S. is right, "few" years ago nobody used zooms for weddings; I remember everybody using Bronica and Hasselblad with up to three primes, at best provided with two bodies. But there was also common to have an assistant, most photographers are steady workers and their routines were absolutely observed, priest included. Flash heads used to be placed on stands. -All- the pics had a "posed" look. Working this way, even a one camera/one lens setup will work.<br /> <br /> Looking at the link Pete provides, I see it is a very loose style, informal, posed shots, with lots of time to waste, lenses wide open, that is, a photographers` dream. This is quite different from being working in an unknown church where nobody cooperates with the photographer (priest included), without assistant, where the action run too fast because the next event will happen a few minutes later.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, camera rentals in San Francisco are *expensive* because there is no competition. In SF proper you've got Calumet, Pro Camera, and Adolph Gassers. All three have minimal inventory, and nothing terribly new (altho Gassers did get a D800). On the peninsula you've got borrowlenses.com, but they aren't exactly what most people would consider reputable.<br>

OTOH if you go online, you can rent a D800E for ten (10) days from lensrentals.com for $312.50 including round trip, FedEx 2nd day air shipping. Just be careful booking a reservation too far in advance or LR will ship your package out via FedEx ground... which means significantly reduced customer service from FedEx's end.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alex, I live in the South Bay Area so that I actually had Keeble and Shuchat in mind. Their lens rental rate is quite reasonable; previously I have rented medium-format film SLRs from them and it was also reasonable. For whatever reason, DSLR rental is very expensive.</p>

<p>A few days ago, I met a person who works for Borrow Lens; he said that he is employee #5 and they now have 50 people working there. Apparently they have grown quite a bit in the last few years and is now a much larger operation than I thought.</p>

<p>In any case, if the OP depends on remote rental and shipping of a D700, there are risks involved. When that D700 does not arrive on time, you will be left with just your own D700. I don't know how many weddings the OP shoots a year. If you don't shoot weddings that often, maybe it is hard to justify all that backup equipment, camera body and lens. If you are a more regular wedding photographer, those backup equipment is a must.</p>

<p>Pete S., nobody says you must have a 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. Wedding photography certainly existed well before Nikon introduced that lens in 2007. I, in fact, don't have that lens (nor am I a regular professional wedding photographer), but I have the 28-70mm/f2.8 and 24-120mm/f4 VR. Looking at the OP's equipment list, I see only one lens shorter than 50mm, as the 35mm is a f1.8 DX and not a wide angle. To me, the 24mm/f1.4 is too wide to be the only wide-angle lens you have at a wedding. And if some day you drop it in the middle of a wedding, you'll be left without any wide lens at work.</p>

 

<p><em>It's somewhat ridiculous to hear someone saying that you must have this or that lens. There are many wedding shooters that uses primes for everything or almost everything just as there are those using only zooms.</em></p>

<p>I have shot a few weddings with primes only but normally would not do that. I think it can be done, but it causes unnecessary stress on the couple and guests as they have to see the photographer switch lenses and play with gear while the event is going on, and while the subjects are waiting for the photographer to be ready to shoot etc. Weddings are fast paced events and any decision which means there will be additional delays is in my opinion a bad one, and even inappropriate. Of course it is up to the photographer to decide what they will use but IMO it is only prudent to give this advice. I will use primes during events such as weddings, or other events in dark caves <em>when the conditions are more relaxed</em> e.g. at the reception and when there is almost no light to work with, but even then a case can be made for the 24-70 instead of the 24/1.4 which is really difficult to focus in the dark. The OP, from what I understood, doesn't yet have the 24/1.4. I love that lens for the look of the images it gives but have gotten many times burned by backfocused images that I didn't notice when shooting. It's not a focus fine tune issue but I believe something to do with the optics and the sensitivity of the AF sensor. I think this prime is not well suited for fast paced shooting, while the 24-70 is. That's one reason I recommend the 24-70 as a primary lens for weddings. The 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 can then be purchased as a second wide angle lens for effects and extreme low light. BTW I would advice for the 35/1.4 instead of the 24/1.4 as the fast wide angle prime as it is more generally useful for people photography.</p>

<p><em>The 24-70mm is a good lens by zoom standards, but it is an average performer,</em></p>

<p>I beg your pardon?! It is a very reliable and consistent lens with optical quality that makes it the reference against which all standard zooms are compared, until something better comes along, which so far hasn't.</p>

Yeah, pretty much what I said, perhaps I could have used the word "great" instead of "good".

<p>I would go for the 24-70. The 24 1.4 is one heck of a lens (I have one for shooting concerts) and I can see why you like it. It's sharper at f/2.0 than the 24-70 is wide open at f/2.8...just incredible optics. I've never seen any other Nikon lens like it. But for events like a wedding, I would want the convenience of the pro-level mid-range zoom. However, if you shoot weddings and rarely use the zoom, then I think you have the answer for your needs and what your clients like.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i pretty much shoot indoor photos with off camera flash the whole time anyways</p>

</blockquote>

<p>in which case, i see even less need for a 1.6 or 1.8 aperture. what do you gain there from not stopping down to at least 2.8? in which case, there's no need to use a prime, since the 24-70 is just as sharp at 2.8.</p>

<p>I do agree that two bodies are a must have for weddings and I also fully agree that for this kind of photography, a middle zoom lens like the 24-70 mm f/2.8 is a must have lens, for all the reasons given above by the others participants in this forum. </p>

<p>Eric, while I concur with the consensus which is that the op does indeed need the 24-70 - people who know a lot more about the exigencies of working as a pro wedding photographer than I do agree about this, nevertheless using off camera flash doesn't preclude the need for fast lenses. Shooting wide open is not only about light levels. Shallow dof can produce wonderful pictures.</p>

<p>@Eric , I like the primes and the 1.4 because i like the DOF , I like the way the photos look, i was only stating that i use off camera flash because people who posted earlier thought that i was only interested in the primes for the speed and low light ability (which is not the case) I have many reasons for preferring them.</p>

<p>Everyone who says i need a back up camera please read my earlier postings, I NEVER SHOOT WITHOUT AT LEAST 2 BACKUP CAMERAS, so that is not relevant to my original posting, i very much understand the importance of a second body, this posting was just about the lenses. </p>

<p>After all of the posts i have read on here and some more thought i have given, i think i will purchase the 24-70 first along with a 70-200. I can afford to add one prime to that lineup and will probably get the 85 just because it is my favorite lens that ive ever used. the rest will come later if needed. </p>

<p>THANK YOU ALL for your help on this !!!!!</p>

<p>Alastair, Brittany... I was going to make the point about shallow depth of field still mattering for off-camera flash, but it occurred to me that I'm not sure how true that is, in a wedding setting. Often, if you're just trying to lose the background, you can simply not light it. That's not always going to be possible (if the background's in direct sunlight and the subject isn't - although then a small aperture is your friend anyway...), but I was curious how generally true that argument is. I guess if you want a soft background that's anything but black, aperture still applies.<br />

<br />

Please forgive my ignorance; I have limited flash experience, and relatively little at weddings because I try to be the unobtrusive guest complementing the official shooter. I'm usually at wide apertures, but mixing with flash is another matter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i think i will purchase the 24-70 first along with a 70-200</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have enough opinions I think. But FWIW you did the right thing IMO.</p>

<p>I don't do a lot of weddings but I shoot with two lenses (they're not Nikkors though): 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. And virtually no flash. I prefer to stop down to f/4.0 if I can, mostly because the shorter zoom isn't that great wide-open, and partly because I would like some DOF. I don't understand the fad which prescribes zero DOF. I also rent a second body so I'm totally with you there.</p>

<p>Isn't it amazing how well the D700 holds up, even today? It doesn't have the best picture quality overall, but my goodness, it manages ISO 6400 so well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>@Eric , I like the primes and the 1.4 because i like the DOF , I like the way the photos look,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>hey, i like fast primes and bokeh emphasis shots too. but i find that stopping down a bit reduces the chance of misfocus in critical situations, compared to wide open or close to it. when i shoot concerts with my 1.4 primes, i like to be around f/2. any wider than that and it's just not enough DoF to give me enough wiggle room. OTOH, if you're shooting a fast prime narrower than 2.8, it's hard to justify using that over either the 24-70 and 70-200.</p>

<p>granted, wedding shots are generally less unpredictable in terms of people's movement than live music shows, so maybe it's easier to get away with 1.6 or 1.8. still, in direct comparison of my fast primes to my 24-70, i find that 2.8 is usually good enough for subject isolation, and that the zoom has excellent bokeh, enough to where i find i only use the primes for times when i absolutely need a wider aperture due to availability of light and/or i want to save weight. in other words,i have come to trust the 24-70 implicitly in its ability to deliver excellent results under pressure. and with an FX camera's hi-ISO capabilities, there's certainly less need to rely on a fast prime and a wide aperture than before.</p>

<p>as far as brittany's lens strategy, i agree. get the absolute must-haves first, then cherry-pick primes at different focal lengths down the road. don't get me wrong, i would love to have the 24/1.4., but when i had the opportunity to get that or the 24-70, i chose the 24-70 and never regretted it.</p>

<p>Brittany, I think the 24-70 is a great decision. Definitely keep that 24 f/1.4 in mind for the future and get it if you like the photos it allows to you produce. It is a bit of a specialty lens, but I cannot say enough about the clarity, color, and sharpness the 24 f/1.4 is at wide apertures. I've used pretty much every newer Nikon lens except for the exotic tele-primes, and the 24mm prime easily has better optical quality and all of them.</p>

<p>There's a practical business side, but then we all do this because we enjoy the craft. Having the tools that allow you to enjoy the craft most is very important as well as the business side of things. Treat yourself when the time is right!</p>

<p>I have 24-70. I also have the primes in that range (35,50,85). 24-70 is fabulous lens, sharp corner to corner wide open. But it is slow compared to the primes. I shoot mostly indoor, in low light situation where f/2.8 and f/1.8 make a difference between photos to keep vs photos to recycle bin.<br>

<br />If I have to use one lens only, I definitely go for 24-70.<br>

<br />If style matters, I work with the primes.</p>