Are the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM and the 24-70 2.8L absolute must haves?

[justin_peters1]

<p>As I'm entering into the world of wedding and event photography a few folks have suggested to me that Canon's EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM and the 24-70 2.8L are the absolute essential lenses for weddings. Is this true? Lens-wise, what else do you have in your bag that you wouldn't live without? (FYI - right now I use a 40d and after a few gigs I hope to graduate to a refurbed 5d.)</p>

[matthijs]

<p>no.</p>

<p>A backup camera however is. As are backup memory cards. And preferably a device to copy your shots to. (Always have two copies of important pictures on different devices...)</p>

<p>A good flash (tilt headed for bounce) is advisable.</p>

<p>A fast zoom is very practical but some people make do with primes. Your preferred distance / focal length is personal of course.</p>

<p>Some people prefer having a good macro lens for details. Plus a 100/2.8 doubles as a pretty fast medium tele.</p>

<p>Remember that your current lenses will behave differently on the 5D. (if they fit at all, EF-s lenses won't...)</p>

<p>What equipment do you have?<br>

What venues / size / lighting will you shoot in?</p>

 

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I use 2 x 5Ds with these lenses for 80% of my work. Great combo.</p>

[kayumangi]

<p>Not necessarily. It all depends on your shooting style. Obviously, having a fast fixed focal increases your chances of getting more decent shots than a regular zoom.<br /> <br /> The 24-70 is the average focal length that most wedding photogs shoot at, coupled with a fast aperture for dark lighting situations, makes it the "Bread-and-Butter" of most Canon wedding shooters. But again you don't have to buy the lenses just because someone says so.<br /> <br /> I personally prefer the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 and the Canon 85mm F/1.8 coupled with the Canon 50mm F/1.4 from time to time.</p>

[missy_kay]

<p>I would think the 24-70 and the 85mm are must haves...</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>My only "must have" for the 5D is the EOS 50mm f/1.4. My EOS L 24-70 f/2.8 is the back-up for my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.</p>

<p> </p>

[steven_moseley1]

<p>No.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>No. I use a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 on my 5D. I use a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 on my 20D. I have a variety of primes, but presently, none of the primes are L lenses. IMHO, the 85mm f1.8 is a must have. For a cropped sensor camera, the 50mm f1.4 is a must have, if a bit fragile.</p>

[noah_maier]

<p>I'm not a Canon shooter, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.<br>

However, more important than any lens is backup gear, especially at a wedding. The 28-75 2.8 (or similar) is by far the most common lens I've seen among wedding photographers. However, that's the reason I haven't bought it. I tend to prefer teles and wides, and don't really deal with the middle range too often. My suggestions?<br>

Buy the 5D<br>

Rent the lenses until you know for sure what you want.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>"As I'm entering into the world of wedding and event photography a few folks have suggested to me that Canon's EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM and the 24-70 2.8L are the absolute essential lenses for weddings. Is this true? Lens-wise, what else do you have in your bag that you wouldn't live without? (FYI - right now I use a 40d and after a few gigs I hope to graduate to a refurbed 5d.)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Must haves? Of course not. People use a wide variety of equipment to shoot various subjects including weddings. The real question is probably not "what to people use," but what and how do I need to shoot.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>If you have the 24-70 the need for the 35 is questionable. The 35 is faster, slightly sharper, brighter in the corners, lighter, but you have 35mm with the 24-70, and it's much more versatile.</p>

[cathy_and_david_bock]

<p>I think if there are two must have lenses that are just plain bread and butter, at least for us, would be a 50 1.4 (or 50 1.2L though I really can't tell much of a difference) and the 70-200 2.8L IS. Much more so than the two you've mentioned. I also prefer the 24 1.4L over the 35 1.4L. I'm also a prime shooter, usually shooting wide open, so I really would rather have the 35 over the 24-70. I do know people who love those lenses, just not us. :)<br>

But as the first person said, a backup body is MUCH more important!!</p>

[justin_peters1]

<p>Thanks for the many helpful responses. I get that equipment varies from person to person... I'm new to wedding photography, not common sense. So, let me rephrase the question and pose it from a versatility standpoint: You're on a desert island shooting a wedding (sounds good right?) and you can take one lens with you. Which one do you take?</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>24-70. Easy.</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>It just depends. And your question gives away your total lack of experience in all matters concerning weddings, I'm not trying to be harsh just matter of fact. My suggestion for you is to crash a wedding, this weekend, and that's only if you can't find a wedding photographer who will allow you to carry his lens cap for the day while you watch and learn. Every church has different rules even to the point of not being allowed in the sanctuary during the ceremony, period. Which means your shooting either through the back door with a 200mm lens or trying to capture what you can from windows, other door ways or even the baptismal. On the other end of the spectrum, you could be right on top of the couple with the officiant pausing during parts of the ceremony so you can get a good shot.</p>

<p>However, to give you a answer, the one lens I would take that would give me the range I might be able to get away with is the <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=295&sort=7&cat=27&page=1">EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM</a> .</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Desert island? Yes, the 24-70 2.8L and nothing else, no question. Otherwise the 35 1.4L prime is **SUPERB** on a FF camera. Superb.</p>

[savagesax]

<p>I have the 24-70, but frankly it's my main backup lens. I prefer the 24-105, same choice as Chris. It's not as fast and not as heavy as the 24-70, but you can trust enlarging prints to 40x60 using the 5D. I haven't done any testing with the 40D.</p>

<p>The Tamron lenses are probably your best deal for the money and light weight. With that in mind you will be able to afford the 5D a bit sooner, which is one great camera. I use the 1Ds mark 3 for the formals, but at the receptions I often go with the lighter weighted 5D. I've been through back surgery and once you have that operation your back is never the same, so weight is often a major factor in the gear I choose.</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>Must Haves? I think this concenpt is a bit silly frankly. Sure there are categories of equipment that are must haves. And backup gear is a must have. But specific lenses, c'mon.</p>

<p>For me it's a fast normal zoom, a fast normal prime, a fast tele prime and a fast tele zoom on lenses. I'l be the first one to admit I have too many lenses and need to thin the heard. </p>

<p>Our lens collection should also reflect other work we do. For me, I do a mix of event work and often in very low light. So, I'm into lighting. I may prefer the F4 24-105 over the 24-70 2.8 for that reason. </p>

<p>The lenses you mention are known for being very sharp. I think people get too hung up on sharpness. If you want photos that pop, good lighting from the right direction and in the right ratios is more important than having the abosolute sharpest lenses. Any of the Canon primes, and any of the L zooms are plenty sharp enough for me. As are the high end Tamrons already mentioned. Provided you get a good copy of course.</p>

<p>I would bet that Nadine with her Tamron 28-75 or Chris his 24-105 or myself with a 17-55 could capture an image that you could not discern from one shot with the 24-70.</p>

<p> </p>

[ujwal]

<p>You have already recieved a lot of answers, nope....you dont need a Porsche to go to work, any car will do. But the Porsche will give an edge to good drivers and bad drivers feel good to know that they own porsches, but a Hyundai will also take you from point A to B.<br>

If you can afford to buy them, then by all means...get the L lenses...because a poor man always pays twice ( i know...i have..i have probably paid thrice but now...all the lenses i own are L series...but I had to buy cheaper lenses at new price and sell them at cheap as dirt prices when i slowly upgraded).<br>

Its always cheaper to get the last lens you need as your first lens, but its important to be practical.<br>

Even with those two lenses you mentioned, I would probably say 35mm 1.4 will be less useful than the workhorses like 24-70 and 24-105 which you will probably be using more than 90% of the time.<br>

Cheers!</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"Canon's EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM and the 24-70 2.8L are the absolute essential lenses for weddings. Is this true?"</strong></em><br />No. But it is true that many excellent and profitable Photographers use these two lenses, extensively.<br /><br />*** <br /><em></em><br /><em>Lens-wise, what else do you have in your bag that </em><strong><em>you wouldn't live without</em></strong><em> (i.e. what I consider essential for weddings, for me)?</em><br /><br />EF16 to 35F/2.8LMkII; EF24F/1.4L; EF50F/1.4; EF135F/2L.<br /><br />I do not own a 24 to 70F/2.8: though I have access to one - it is superfluous in my kit as I exploit the advantages of a dual format, thus the 16 to 35 and the 70 to 200 give me the necessary zoom compass at a constant max Av F2.8.<br /><br />Granted there are fundamental guidelines for a lens kit; most would agree a fast Prime or two is a necessity as is a general normal compass fast non-varying maximum aperture zoom. The 35 and the 24 -70 fit that bill perfectly. But beyond generalities, it seems to me silly to make statements that any specific lens is a "must have" (for everyone). <br /><br />I also think it unwise to design / decide upon a lens kit and then adapt ones technique; style and business plan to that. <br /><br />WW</p>

 

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>If you get a working copy of the 24-70, don't store it lens down in a bag.</p>

<p>I however, could not get a copy to work consistently and gave up.</p>

<p>OTOH, the 35 works nearly perfectly and if you can make yourself shoot with a fixed lens, is a great addition to the 40D.</p>

[l_e]

<p>It all depends on your style. I like the 35 and would consider it a must have for myself. I have a 24-70 and I can't wait to sell it. </p>

[ejder]

<p>24-70 is a very good standby if you can #1 get a good copy, and #2 have enough light. People with crop sensor cameras almost universally prefer the 17-55 IS, probably because it has IS.<br>

<br />The 35L was my most recent purchase and I am so used to zooms in that range that I am having difficulty using it. That said, extra 2 stops of light can be very helpful...</p>

[vcakic]

<p>You don't write what lenses are you using now. 24-70 2.8 is a must have, because it's fast and covers most useful range. 35 1.4 is a lens of choice: if I were in your shoes, I would take (together with 24-70) something on a wider or tele side and depending on a budget 50mm 1.4 or 1.8. With that 50mm you can see if you want to go wider or else with a fast 1.4 prime. Depends on your style.</p>

[lou korell]

<p>When I was a Canon shooter I always had the 24-70 on a camera. I always had the 35 with me and used it quite a bit. Both are outstanding as long as you get good calibrated copies. I was lucky. Both those lenses were great for me and never needed repairs. I won't mention all the others that did. :)<br>

The 24-70 has been controversial due to many with softness issues. My lens was great although I had to try more than one to get one that did work correctly. A good 24-70 is a very special lens. It is almost the perfect wedding zoom for a Canon shooter. I really can't explain it but it has a very special quality and images just look great.<br>

I can say the same about the 35. I used both 35 1.4 and 24 1.4 and they are both top quality prime lenses. I wouldn't hesitate to buy either or both, of course they are not cheap! You can't lose though with either.</p>