Which one would you choose?

[cariad]

<p>My main lens for weddings is the 24-70 2.8 I could not be without it. I have primes, but I rather use the 24-70 and the 70-200, but if I had to choose I would get the 24-70 first.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>And I much prefer primes, and that's almost all I use for everything. So you really have to follow your heart and style and do whatever to express your vision and is instinctive to use. Your portfolio is great so I would just follow suit accordingly, fine eye you have for expression and moods.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Amanda, take a look at the Master Lesson on Wedding Gear I recently wrote for Photo.net</p>

<p>www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00V98v</p>

<p>(Or go to the wedding forum archives for gear questions and look for the Master Lesson).</p>

<p>Scroll down to the Canon section and read about using fast aperture primes pro and con ... but more importantly to the Lesson Assignment at the end which is an exercise in determining what you actually use in terms of focal lengths when shooting a wedding ... use this to see how much you use your 50 verses your 100 for example.</p>

<p>Personally, I am like Nadine and rarely use a tele-zoom. For me, its sole use is at the ceremony when relegated to the back of the Church or balcony and I almost never lug it to a reception. I did the Lesson Exercise myself and saw that I used my 70-200 at the long end (140 to 200mm) almost 95% of the time and would be better off had I spent less on a 135 or 200mm. So, for me, that is a LOT of money for a limited use optic. However, that is strictly a personal bias based on my way of seeing and shooting a wedding.</p>

<p>The most versatile zoom is the 24-70/2.8 which accounts for a majority of wedding shots for most of those people that have that lens.</p>

<p>The Canon 50/1.2L is more than just a fast aperture lens. It is quite good at suppressing flare (as are many really fast maximum aperture lenses designed to control contrast extremes in low available light conditions). Unlike the Canon 85/1.2L, this lens is not as slow focusing. Most people caution use of fast apertures due to lack of depth-of-field ... however, these lenses need not always be used right on top of the subject at the closest focusing distances ... they are amazing when shot at a more reasonable distance because distance from subject increases the effective depth-of-field of any lens. </p>

<p>The creative possibilities can be approached via more extreme angles of view like Nadine's suggested Fisheye, or they can be explored via more effective use of available light ... using no flash or a LOT less flash in darker conditions. The combo of a Canon 5DMK-II and it's low light ability and the 50/1.2 could be a revelation ... there is quite a big difference between f/1.8 and f/1.2 in pictorial look.</p>

<p>I would also not be afraid of using primes verses zooms. Once you get the rhythm of weddings down, it is very easy to anticipate which lens you'll need for what part of a wedding and be there without missing anything.</p>

<p>Were it me, I'd keep what you have and add a 85/1.2L (a used version I) and perhaps the best lens in the Canon line up ... the 135/2L, and get the Canon 1.4X-II extender for it to give you an effective 190/2.8 for those few times you may need more reach. </p>

<p> </p>

[amanda_lee_seely]

<p>Thank you so much for your responses. I think I am just going to go with my gut and stick with my primes. I only picked up my first camera 6 months ago and still trying to find my way creatively while still trying to learn all the technical details. I think it is about the rhythm of the wedding and I get so nervous being a newbie. Having my own over the top wedding 3 years ago has helped me in this new field. I know what its like to be a bride and a consumer.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Hi. After eight hours trying to capture a wedding, being old and tired and shooting at an Inn where I did a lot of weddings I would sit on a table with my now 12 year old non IS 70-200 2.8 (I got it for newspaper sports) and shoot the dancing kind of like i was shooting basketball. The zoom was very handy because I could stay seated and shoot around the dance floor. Yes, I used flash but it is much kinder from a distance, and my customers liked the pictures. I also used Bronicas and Prime lenses for my weddings. Changing lenses never bothered me. Loading and changing film backs did. More recently doing some head shots I used the 70-200 at 135 mm on a 5d to reduce the effect of sharp features on one subject. Worked well. I also was once doing an outdoor wedding where this minister absolutely forbade pictures during the ceremony. He was rude to me and the bride who really wanted the pictures. Sooo, I crawled into a bush, old military training, with the lens and well hidden I fired off about 70 pictures unbeknownst to anyone except to a few surprised guests who saw me crawling out of the back of the bush. The bride was thrilled. Just my experience, the lens is pretty sharp and unforgiving on close head shots. You may need to do some skin softening. So I don't expect, Amanda, you will be shooting from bushes or be as lazy as I was wanting to relax while shooting dancing. I think the 50/1.2 would be great for eliminating the use of flash but I would watch for DOF wide open. Both with the newspaper and in my studio I prefered working with a deeper DOF just to compensate for small focusing errors and so as not to blur things that were not on a narrow plane. I control the studio background with lights rather than Bokeh. However, this is just my experience and they say advice is worth what you pay for it. I rate technique much more important than equipment as long as the equipment is adequate to do the job and the photographer is comfortable with the ergonomics. I did a lot with the Bronica ETRS equivilent of FF 50 mm. That made the most natural pictures IMO. I did use WA but no wider than the equivilent of 28mm so as to avoid too much distortion. Like I say this is just my experience not to be taken too seriously particularly about hiding in bushes. My newspaper training---anything to get the picture. Good Luck to you. </p>