After doing this for a few years I'm beginning to gather a sense of my style and the needs require from lenses. I'm shooting with a 40D right now and plan to move to the 5D FF successor when it comes out.

I have a 24-70L that I'm thinking of selling to fund the purchase of 3 primes.

My line up would be

Sigma
14mm f2.8
30mm f1.4 (replaced if I switch FF)

Canon
50mm f1.4
85mm f1.8

Eventually I will buy a 70-200 f2.8 and possibly a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 to round my setup out.

The last wedding I did I found myself using the 30mm f1.4 way more than I did the 24-70, even I was surprised. I actually bought both lenses at the same time.

My original direction was 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 and the 30mm Prime. To my there's this allure to shooting with a prime lens, the look an image gets, and the extra f stops to shoot in low light settings.

Decisions decisions... they need to keep me busier at work.

 

I am slowly getting rid of all my zooms and going prime only. I am only keeping one in case one day I might want to crack it out. I have a 50mm and 24mm and looking to get a 35mm and do some more research and see other varieties. With the 24 and the 50 I get most of the shots I need (I do portraits).

 

I love primes as well, but don't see myself getting rid of my EF-S 17-55 or EF 70-200 any time soon. They are just too versatile and too good, but I do agree the allure of the prime is strong. Sharpness, color and contrast are hard to beat, though zooms have come a long way in that regard. My concession to the extra stops of speed primes have is to try to purchase zooms with constant apertures only. That eliminates the frustration of slow long ends.

You're doing it the right way, though. Get a sense of your style and select your lenses based on that.

 

Primes definitely have the advantage of being faster than zooms, but you give up some versatility. I'f you're in a a controlled environment, then it is pretty easy to manage. In a fast-paced situation (e.g. weddings) it is a little more difficult to get all the shots framed the way you want with a prime. Of course, having two bodies makes this a little easier, but you might still be switching between lens and bodies frequently.

The 24-70L is a great lens, by all acounts (I have never used it) and I don't know if you really want to get rid of it. The 50 1.4 and 80 1.8 are reasonably priced and I would consider buying them before selling the 24-70 to make sure you are comfortable with the primes in demanding situations. I'd probably keep the primes for formals, portraits and some reception shots and use the zooms for the ceremony and some reception shots.

 

I'm the opposite. I started all primes and have been selectively wanting zooms. I have a 70-200. I really want the 14-24. And maybe a much longer telephoto zoom.

Zooms are more convienient for location shooting and cut the chance of dust in your sensor down a bit because you won't be swapping lens too often. That said I more or less live on my 24 80% of the time.

 

PS but if I had the money for the 14-24. I would live on that most of the time and its a 2.8 same as my 24

 

There's also a huge difference between shooting wide landscapes that have little, if any, movement and shooting weddings, which are constant movement of the participants and the photographer.

And I know you're speaking pro-zoom, just making a point.

 

I can't stand switching lenses. I have been doing it more regularly lately with the 50 1.4 and the 24-70 (since getting the 50) and each time I have been VERY careful, leaving the camera open for maybe 1 second tops. Guess what - I have about 4 huge spots now. Fukin SUCKS!!!!

Changing lenses FTL - I'll take a good zoom over a set of primes any day.

 

That's what I would be worried about. Is there such thing as a 12-400mm zoom??

 

12-400, you'll probably be holding a 15lb 2.5ft canon. Canon as a 28-300 which by far is the least popular "L" lens they make. It's out performed by everything they have in the L line up in quality, AF speed, Sharpness. The only thing it does have is a 28-300 range, which isn't a constant F.

I always wondered about that lens, so expensive. I think in that range the 17-55 is much more practical and useful.

Exactly!! Usually I do shoot in a controlled environment where I can make the distance between subject and myself.

I would love to keep the 24-70 It's fabulous and in my opinion the best all purpose lens for a majority of Canon photographers. Even the Nikon 24-70 is a beast of a lens that just hits that pocket. Only disadvantage on a crop is the WA end isn't too WA, but it makes for a hell of a portrait lens due to the effective range you get with the 1.6x

I guess from what / where I've been shoot thus far the extra F stops and IQ is an advantage over a zoom + changing out glass.

This guy from POTN seriously has my dream lens setup.

Canon 15mm f/2.8, 14mm f/2.8L, 35mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L II, 135mm f/2.0L, 16-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, 300mm f/2.8L IS, Extender EF 1.4x II & 2x II

 

That's sexy...

 

This exact reason is why I would think the versatility of zooms would be a significant factor for wedding photography.

 

I love shooting wide. Wide close ups, etc etc. personal preferences.

 

Yea I guess down to 12 from 17 is a lot wider. I always wondered why canon never made a 12-24 f2.8

 

^^^^

That is why you shouldn't buy a Canon

 

yea I think my tokina 12-24 is my walk around now. Except at night/low light, where I might have to switch to my sigma 30. I wish canon had a 14-24 f/2.8, but I probably couldn't afford it anyways.

The tokina 11-16 looks appealing, but really, not so versatile that it could be glued to my camera. But I'd like to give it a shot sometime down the road.