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

<p>so i shoot weddings and have been renting the lenses i need for each event, so i have used all of these and am now ready to purchase the ones i really need. Although i have rented the 24-70 for almost every wedding and everyone swears it is a must have for wedding photography I feel like i like the results of every other lens much better. my favorite lens by far is the 85mm 1.4, so this is my question. If i have the 24mm 1.4 the 50mm 1.4 , the 70-200 2.8, and the 85mm 1.4 along with two bodies (to decrease the time of changing lenses) do you think i will regret not purchasing the 24-70 ? Im thinking during getting ready photos i would be fine with the 50 and the 24, and for portraits i would obviously use the 85 or 70-200, and during the ceremony i would have the 70-200 on one camera, take my wide church shot with the 24 and have a 50 on the second camera, and then for reception photos im thinking i could get away with the 24 for most of the reception along with the 50 on the second camera. like i said i haven't shot a wedding before without the 24-70, but if i purchase it i will have to give up one of the others that i really want (probably the 24) because i cant afford both. any advice would be appreciated. Thanks !</p>

<p>i forgot to mention i have the d700</p>

<p>Are your two bodies both FX?</p>

<p>You have some nice lenses already, but if you should weddings professionally, I would add the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. Sometimes for wedding photography, it is a matter of getting the shot, and a mid-range zoom at f2.8 helps. Frequently there is no time to change lenses, and you also don't seem to have a 35mm, which IMO is more useful than the 24mm/f1.4 at least for me, but your style could well be different.</p>

<p>i only own one body right now and yes its fx d700 but i would just rent a second body when i shoot weddings. i shot one wedding with two bodies and i really liked the convenience of not having to change lenses (especially during the ceremony) although all those straps around my neck did end up getting tangled and choking me the whole time lol (but its worth it) and i do have a 35 but i dont like the results with it on my d700 its a dx lens</p>

<p>Often, during a wedding, you have to shoot fast, don't have time to switch lenses and can't zoom "with your feet", so having a high quality zoom can be a life-saver. In addition, the DoF of lenses at f/1.4 is often paper thin, so the probability of poorly focused shots is much higher at such a wide aperture and so you'll tend to stop down to somewhere around f/2.8 anyway.</p>

<p>It's a *very* useful lens.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - Shun posted as I was typing. We are saying similar things. </p>

<p>For whatever reason, in the US, DSLR rental is very expensive. If that is indeed the case for you, perhaps buying a second body should be a higher priority. As a wedding photographer, having a backup body is critical. A used D700 is a possibility; the cost should be no more than renting the D700 for 10 days. There is of course the D800 and potentially more on the horizon.</p>

<p>Besides back up body/bodies, I think another 24-70mm/f2.8 helps. And there are flashes and backup flashes.</p>

<p>I am sure others will have a lot more ideas.</p>

<p>yes i agree that its useful, i guess i am just letting my lust get in the way of practicality. i love the 24mm 1.4 SOOO much, so much fun to shoot ! :) I am pretty sure though that whenever i am shooting the 24-70 i forget to zoom anyways, thats the main reason i was thinking i might not miss it, because i am so used to prime lenses that i forget to zoom , therefore i usually keep it at 24 anyways . also i usually shoot at 1.6 or 1.8 haven't had a problem with focusing</p>

<p>the rental isnt bad actually its $100 for 3 days for the d700, but i will definitely get a second one. i have many flashes and dont need any more of those </p>

<blockquote>

<p>$100 for 3 days for the d700</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is not bad at all. Maybe I haven't checked prices recently, in my area (San Francisco), it is more like $100 to $150 per day.</p>

<p>Two cameras on the neck seem to me an awkward way of working. Too much weight for me (I like to have the battery grip attached, and of course, flash head).</p>

<p>As said, there are moments where you need to change the focal settings several times in a couple seconds to get the shot. Even with two cameras, you have to be very experienced, or to be used to a certain priest/ceremony to avoid the risk of losing an image.</p>

<p>I know this by experience; when I have to submit a reportage, I try to run the lesser risks. Few weeks ago I had some difficult scenes during a ceremony, thanks God I had the 24-70. No problems.</p>

<p>About the 24mm, It`s matter of room, I think. If I had to shoot in the conditions you mention, I`d have a 24, 35, 50 and 85. Personally, no need of the 70-200. During the ceremony, 35 and 85 in two cameras (for sure I`d miss the 50... ). Portraits with the 85, and if the dinner is packed (as it`s usual around here) a 24 or 28 could be a must.</p>

<p>I use to work in two reportages; one is that boring, conventional, typical images, and another, usually without flash, where I shoot everything that calls my attention. Nothing unusual, but works.</p>

<p>If you are the steady photographer, unexpected situations will be minimized, so you can shoot with whatever. Not my case.</p>

<p>i use borrow lenses they have great prices, and since the d800 came out the rental price on the d700 dropped</p>

<p>Here is my wedding photography contribution.</p>

<p>I only shot one wedding, and it was about 10 years ago for friends at our family church. The bride knew I was a photog, and asked me to supplement the professional photographer she had hired.</p>

<p>I used a Leica M6TTL with a 50/2.0 Summicron. I shot one roll of Delta 400, which I pushed to ISO 800.</p>

<p>It was a Saturday wedding, and when I got home that evening, I developed the roll of film. And on Sunday evening, I selected my favorite shots and printed them at 8x10 on Ilford satin finish Warmtome paper. They were a little grainy because I had to crop them a fair bit.</p>

<p>On Monday I took them to my favorite frame shop and had them matted to 11x14, but not framed.</p>

<p>I got them back on Wednesday, which was nice because the bride, groom, and I all had choir practice that evening. So, I gift wrapped the photographs and handed them to the bride after choir practice that night.</p>

<p>She remarked how thick the package was, and asked, How many pictures did you take? I said go ahead an open it.</p>

<p>Inside there are four matted prints. Two at the alter that were taken from the congregation perspective (bride receiving her ring and first kiss). There was one close up of their hands cutting the wedding cake, and one of their first dance, her head on the groom's shoulder.</p>

<p>She was thrilled.</p>

<p>Years later, the bride reminded me that these were her favorite memories from the wedding, which delights me every time I think about it.</p>

<p>So, to answer your question: No.</p>

<p>2nd Body 1st. Lens 2nd when you have the funds.</p>

<p>Although truly you would know best if you need the lens or not.</p>

<p>Sometimes you don't know how important a 2nd body, 2nd lens is until your primary one is broken. With Murphy's Law, that tends to take place at the most critical moment of the wedding.</p>

<p>When you are a paid, professional photographer who is expected to deliver, the requirements are higher than amateurs, second shooters just to assist, and student photographres who may charge $200 to shoot a casual wedding.</p>

<p>If the straps of two bodies seem inconvenient, consider trying out the RapidStrap system, which also comes in a two-strap variant.</p>

<p>@shun Cheung , like i stated in a previous post i ALWAYS use two bodies when i shoot weddings, i rent the second body, so purchasing one is not a priority right now, i understand the importance of backup gear. my original post was just asking about the different lenses. @Dan brown, that is a great story im glad she liked her photos, but i am not seeing what it has to do with my post/question, thanks for the input though. @james youngman, thanks for the info i will check that out, i have looked into things such as the spyder system but they are pricey and will be on my list of things to get after i collect all the lenses i need.</p>

No, I don't think you will miss the 24-70. I've shot weddings with a lot of PJ coverage using primes only and it works fine. For me it actually works much better with primes than a zoom. I mean it's more work with primes but when comparing the results I found that I produced better images with primes. I also use two cameras.

 

 

Some people are under the impression that you need a zoom to quickly catch a moment but I find that is not the case. To make a good photo you need to physically be in the right spot and a zoom will not help you with that. You also need to observe the light, the composition and press the shutter at the right time. A zoom will not help you with that either.

 

 

Then there is the advantage of large apertures when using primes that most zooms don't have. For low light situations of course but perhaps more importantly for the creative capability to isolate the subject.

 

 

If you shoot with two cameras and spend some time practicing swapping lenses and also learn the coverage of your primes you'll be fine. If someone who never used a prime wanted to get lenses for wedding work I would be a little hesitant to recommend primes from the get go.

<blockquote>

<p>"No, I don't think you will miss the 24-70. I've shot weddings with a lot of PJ coverage using primes only and it works fine. For me it actually works much better with primes than a zoom. I mean it's more work with primes but when comparing the results I found that I produced better images with primes. I use two cameras. Some people are under the impression that you need a zoom to quickly catch a moment but I find that is not the case. To make a good photo you need to physically be in the right spot and a zoom will not help you with that. You also need to observe the light, the framing and press the shutter at the right time. A zoom will not help you with that either. Then there is the advantage of large apertures when using primes that most zooms don't have. For low light situations of course but perhaps more importantly for the creative capability to isolate the subject. If you shoot with two cameras and spend some time practicing swapping lenses and also learn the coverage of your primes you'll be fine. If someone never used a prime and wanted to start out I would be a little hesitant to recommend primes from the get go."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Thanks Pete, that's what i was thinking, i like my results better with primes as well , if it weren't for tight spaces i wouldn't even mind using my 85 to shoot an entire wedding (the results would be amazing) since you are a prime shooter would you mind of i saw some of your wedding work ? do you have a website ?</p>

<p>What do you find when you analyze your shots taken with the 24-70 - which focal lengths did you use most? If you are mostly at either end - then the zoom is mostly wasted on you and you likely will do as well (if not better) with primes. I realize that I am a "zoom person", primes don't suit me nearly as much. But that might be for a lack of trying.</p>

<p>I would <em>highly </em>recommend getting the 24-70 for weddings even if you have a bunch of primes. You will need a backup lens (those can be the primes for the zoom and vice versa when one fails) and the 24-70 is just immeasurably useful for reducing stress and lens switching during time-critical parts of the ceremony and also for reducing the time needed to do the formals and giving more options at that stage. I don't see how it is <em>obvious </em> that you should use a tele for portraits. For full body shots, groups, interaction between bride and groom with some environment etc. the 24-70 can do it all, and excellently, I might say, too. I find that when I adjust lights anyway, I do not want to be switching cameras and lenses in the same session which everyone probably want to get over with, so for any kind of outdoor and environmental portraits, groups, at weddings or elsewhere, my go-to lens is the 24-70. For head shots a longer lens is useful also, but that's just one type of portrait. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I like to use the 85 for portraits (even full body) I just have to be farther away but i find it worth it, here is an example of a full body formal shot i did with my 85, but you are probably right about having the 24-70 just in case, i will probably purchase it, and then just get the 24 1.4 another time when i have some more money to spend.<img src="https://brmimaging.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/i-sjffhmk-l.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>i do have a 35 but i dont like the results with it on my d700 its a dx lens</blockquote>

 

<p>Just to pick up on that, I presume everyone else is talking about a 35mm f/1.4 or similar (FX lens), though I suspect the new 28mm f/1.8 might be quite tempting on a budget.<br />

<br />

I've only ever shot as a guest, and deliberately very long (candid) or wide (group), so I've never wished I had a 24-70 at a wedding. A 28-200 has occasionally been useful outside, but I'd have lived quite well with my 14-24 and 80-200 (although I only got that after the last wedding I attended; well, strictly speaking I got it for the use of the person borrowing my camera at <i>my</i> wedding...) But because I've not been the official photographer, it's not mattered if I spent time switching lenses, and messing around with a manual-focus 85mm and my 200 f/2 has been acceptable.<br />

<br />

Before worrying too much about filling every gap in the focal range, I'd wonder how much you really need the full resolution at all of them. Sure, a D800 would have a lot more pixels to throw away, but you can chop a fair bit off a D700 and still have a decent album-sized print. I'd err on the side of slightly wide and trust to Photoshop (and zooming with my feet), to some extent.<br />

<br />

But then, mid-range zooms have never really appealed to me... and nor has the stress of shooting a wedding!</p>

The 24-70mm is a good lens by zoom standards, but it is an average performer, and slow, when compared to the nice primes you have. I

see no reason whatever for you to buy the 24-70. You have two bodies, so use the 85 and the 24, keep the 50 in you pocket, and the 70-

200 at home. Another option would be to replace the 24 and the 50 with a 35. Two lenses, will simplify your wedding day techniques,

allowing you to concentrate more on composition, and getting in the right places, and shouldn't leave you wanting.

<blockquote>

<p>and the 70-200 at home</p>

</blockquote>

<p>just curios why you wouldn't want to use a 70-200 ?</p>

<p>The 85 is nice and there's no reason not to use if for portraits. When doing the portraits you generally have time to change the lens. But the 24-70 is generally (at least, I've found) the single most useful lens at an event/wedding. Also the 70-200. I usually have the 24-70 on my D700, a end takes beautiful portraits especially when opened up. But it's up to you. You've used the lenses, its most important what you like. I would agree with those who say you should get another body for back-up. It could be a real nightmare if you don't have a back-up camera at an important event.</p>