Have read some good stuff on the Sigma 35 1.4...as well as the Nikon's 35 1.4G. Here is a review on the 35 incase you have not seen it yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2C9EXiLnqQ

If the 35mm focal length is that you are after then I would give careful consideration between the two. I for one lean on the Nikon side.

With all that said, I second msoto's recommendation on the 24 1.4G and the 85 1.8G. Here is a picture I took this past week with my 24 1.4G. This was hand held @ ISO 10,000 and is right out of my D4, hence no post processing. Needless to say, the setting was very, very dark and the result with this lens is mind blowing.

D4 24 1.4G 1/30 ISO 10000 @ f/3.5

Lastly, I happy to hear you are holding on to your 24-70 2.8...it is an Awesome lens that is always with me.

msmoto said:
I have been lusting after the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon T. If one does not have any issues with manual focus, this is a stunner of a lens.

Try the Rokinon/Samyang 35mm 1.4 before the Zeiss, might be good enough, so you might save some (a lot) dough as well.

And try the Sigma 35mm 1.4 HSM as well, get autofocus and the ability to tune the lens with the optional USB Dock as a bonus.
Half the price of the Nikon 35 1.4 lens.

If I were to get a Zeiss lens now, it would be the new 15mm f/2.8

I have been lusting after the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon T. If one does not have any issues with manual focus, this is a stunner of a lens.

Definitely don't go with the Nikon 35mm if you are going for a 35. The Sigma 35mm is showing better results so far and is almost half the cost. I have not seen a 35mm test with the Sigma against the Nikon but the Sigma is blowing away the Canon for sure:
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/87-sigma-35mm-f14-vs-canon-35mm-f14

But the Sigma in it's own right is just shaping up to be a solid lens:
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/86-sigma-35mm-f14-review

I would also stick with the pro zoom as well. It is really annoying switching all the time and I have found that after 5 or 6 lens swaps, the sensor on the D800 can get quite dirty. I have found this to be the case with most Nikon bodies especially FX. The D700, D600 and D800E.

spraynpray said:
Whilst I agree with everything you say Tao (as I said in my post some way back), I wonder WHY would one want the work of a prime in a wedding situation? I am absolutely certain that the Bride and Groom aren't going to give a toss about the tiny difference in quality of two identical images one taken on a 50 prime and the other taken at 50 on the zoom. However if the shot is out of focus or even missing because of a failure to get a sharp one.....

I wish I could post some of a wedding reception that I only shot with a 50mm 1.4 and the fuji, but the bride and groom asked for me not to post any so I need to respect that. I do have to say they turned out great, most were black and white and each shot was focused on one or just two people with few group shots(at their request). I worked with another photog who just used a 17-55 (w/ DX) and even I was surprised the difference in looks and that doesn't happen much for me. The bride had given me a few links to some photographers who shoot only with 35s & 50s (Leica but she didn't know that) and they were masterful with just those two lenses.

The trouble with using primes is the speed of some of the "events" - I.e. "quick family gathering right after the nuptials-leaving the church-into limo" and "entering reception-taking place at head table-cutting cake-first dance" to get those key shots a Zoom for speed is really helpful. If you have an active group, it can become a necessity.

The planning, checklist, speed of moving, double checking focus, etc. turned me into a sweaty mess by the end of the night and I had about 3x more photos - uggh! That added about 15hours of more post. Priced that one wrong. If I for some reason did more weddings, I would want the 24-70 on one body and a 50mm 1.4 on the other for the reception and a 24-120 f/4 - 70-200vr combo in the church.

For anyone reading my thoughts, Note that I didn't do any of the Formal sittings at all - the other photog did most of that before the wedding. It was a pure documentary style - and nothing more. For the formal stuff, I would add a 85mm, 60mm, 105mm (dependent on wedding) and probably a 16-35mm set at 24mm most of the time. If I was lazy I would go with just the 24-70.

Godless said:
Go for the primes. I´d get the 24mm instead of the 35mm, as you can always use the crop mode or stick the lens on a DX body to get the 35mm FOV if needed. And If you want to save some dough, the new Sigma 35mm 1.4 is the sharpest 35mm available.

When I shot only the 35mm & 50mm I did want the wideness of the 24 many times. I had a 17mm I used a few times, but swapping lenses became too time consuming.

Godless said:
.... the new Sigma 35mm 1.4 is the sharpest 35mm available.

I too am thinking hard about this lens. Just waiting for more availability.

briantek said:
I currently have a 24-70 2.8 and I am thinking about switching to primes (35/85 1.4)

Go for the primes. I´d get the 24mm instead of the 35mm, as you can always use the crop mode or stick the lens on a DX body to get the 35mm FOV if needed. And If you want to save some dough, the new Sigma 35mm 1.4 is the sharpest 35mm available.

Whilst I agree with everything you say Tao (as I said in my post some way back), I wonder WHY would one want the work of a prime in a wedding situation? I am absolutely certain that the Bride and Groom aren't going to give a toss about the tiny difference in quality of two identical images one taken on a 50 prime and the other taken at 50 on the zoom. However if the shot is out of focus or even missing because of a failure to get a sharp one.....

briantek said:
Thank you for all of the replies. I think ultimately what I am going to do is buy both the 85 and 35 1.4G and keep my 24-70.

That is probably the best track. Shooting primes especially at weddings, is very different and is much more involved. Two bodies is almost a must.

The last couple I shot (I do weddings very rarely and always as a 2nd photog at the request of the wedding party and in a documentary style.) I shot a fuji x100 (35mm f/2 equiv) & D800 swapping 70-200, 28-70 f/2.8, 85mm 1.8 and a 50mm 1.4. The two most used out of those are the 70-200vr & 50mm. The 2 largest issues I run into is that even @ f/2 it is almost two shallow DOF on the 35mm and I'm usually at f4 to ensure all the subjects are in focus. The second is to make sure to have a check list of photos and subjects to get and take about 4x more of each than with a zoom if you are staying at f/1.4-2.0 as you will miss more shots or not get enough in focus for it to be "good." With the 50 (and why I don't use the 85mm much any more, the ole' one eye focused other blurred out happens a lot. At 8ft with a 35mm @f2 your DOF is only 1'3", which if you have a couple dancing, depending on the focus point, you will get only one of them in focus many times. A 50mm @ 1.4 is 9 inches and the 85mm @ 1.8 is only 3 inches.

I thing primes are worth the work, but just know, they are work.

Thank you for all of the replies. I think ultimately what I am going to do is buy both the 85 and 35 1.4G and keep my 24-70. The 85 will probably be purchased first and I'll get the 35 once I have the funds. I don't see myself using a 70-200 unless I am shooting a wedding, and in that case I would rent one. I plan to use the 35 1.4G as my walk around lens and keep the 85 nearby.

For a dynamic situation like a wedding I don't think I would give up the zoom. Maybe if you went to do specifically posed portraits a prime might be a good idea, but I wouldn't want the during the ceremony or reception.

I love my 70-200 for weddings. Before I thought about buying primes (unless I really was intending, and needed to shoot at wider than 2.8) I'd get one to compliment your 24-70. There is very little you will come across that you won't be able to handle with those two. I my opinion, primes are great when you have some control over the shoot, but as has been said by other members, weddings are a very fast moving environment, and I for one find good quality zooms a real boon is such occasions.

How about a 24mm f/1.4 Nikkor G. A second body with an 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor G.

Here is my son's wedding, of which I was a part, but managed to get a few snapshots with my D4 and 24mm f/1.4. The only shots I would have used the 85mm f/1.8 would be the posed groups in the church using a multiple umbrella setup with 800 WS of strobes.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/sets/72157631859730867/

aquarian_light said:
wow! you shoot wildlife with nothing longer than a 70mm? props to you sir. I know wildlife protogs that shoot with 800mm primes with 2x teleconverters and still have to slosh around in the mud to get in the right place. But since I do mostly second shooting for the biggest studio here in town, primes are a godsend. I get sloppy when I get to zoom. Esp at receptions. Moving around and getting yourself into position is much more important than being able to stand in one place and machine-gun with teles. For the ceremony, sure, I set my camera to machinegun mode from the back of the hall and shoot that couple like they're nazi zombies.

lol, no I use a 300mm F4 for wildlife and sports, although I have used the 24-70 from time to time. For event shooting I primarily use the 24-70 on my D700, and rent a 70-200mm F2.8 when I need tight shots (primarily at 135mm and 200mm.

spraynpray said:
As I am considering the 24-70 right now and would sell my 35 and 50 to get it, I am intrigued by this thread. Reading this thread, there does seem to be more weight to the 24-70 argument than the primes, but Aquarian Light is apparently out there doing weddings weekly so his points can't be dismissed.

With the low light performance around now, I am surprised using a couple of stops higher ISO hasn't come up more. I'd rather risk a really small amount of noise than a missed shot due to a too shallow depth of field coupled with poorer low light focusing.

Almost sounds like we need a 35-135 f2.8 lens for FX wedding shooters.

That would be incredible as a matter of fact. But again like PB said, its all about style. I am capable of maintaining my style because of my d800 that has incredible lowlight focusing with fast primes. I'll miss maybe 3 or 4 out of a 100 good shots because of focus issues. And I get that "Artsy" shallow DOF that's all the rage here in town. Some other towns I know like a more documentary or journalistic approach to their wedding shots, but here they like my style. So the 50 at f2 is by bread and butter. And for the record, some events are in such horrendous light that my 50 at f2 even I', using iso 6400 and shutter of 1/60th, which is just about as low as I'm comfortable with on this particular lens.

As I am considering the 24-70 right now and would sell my 35 and 50 to get it, I am intrigued by this thread. Reading this thread, there does seem to be more weight to the 24-70 argument than the primes, but Aquarian Light is apparently out there doing weddings weekly so his points can't be dismissed.

With the low light performance around now, I am surprised using a couple of stops higher ISO hasn't come up more. I'd rather risk a really small amount of noise than a missed shot due to a too shallow depth of field coupled with poorer low light focusing.

Almost sounds like we need a 35-135 f2.8 lens for FX wedding shooters.

PB PM said:
As I noted it all depends on shooting style. I have only shot at weddings relationally, so I stayed out of the way as much as possible, which is where the zooms work very well. I'm more used to shooting sports and wildlife, where zooming with ones feet isn't always possible.

When I zoom I use the 24, 50 and 70mm positions on the 24-70, and move as needed to make those work. For me it is more about framing, than making something look closer. I could use primes, but once you have the 24, 35, 50 and 85mm 1.8 or 1.4 in your bag it weighs the same or more than the 24-70. Add in more lens swaps, thus more chances for dust to get on the sensor, thus more chances to miss shots, and for me primes don't make sense.

wow! you shoot wildlife with nothing longer than a 70mm? props to you sir. I know wildlife protogs that shoot with 800mm primes with 2x teleconverters and still have to slosh around in the mud to get in the right place. But since I do mostly second shooting for the biggest studio here in town, primes are a godsend. I get sloppy when I get to zoom. Esp at receptions. Moving around and getting yourself into position is much more important than being able to stand in one place and machine-gun with teles. For the ceremony, sure, I set my camera to machinegun mode from the back of the hall and shoot that couple like they're nazi zombies.

As I noted it all depends on shooting style. I have only shot at weddings relationally, so I stayed out of the way as much as possible, which is where the zooms work very well. I have shot other events, professionally, and found the 24-70mm to be excellent for dealing with quickly changing situations, where moving simply with my feet would not have cut it. That said, I'm more used to shooting sports and wildlife, with a telephoto prime, where you have a fixed position and you live with it.

When I zoom I use the 24, 50 and 70mm positions on the 24-70, and move as needed to make those work. For me it is more about framing, than making something look closer. I could use primes, but once you have the 24, 35, 50 and 85mm 1.8 or 1.4 in your bag it weighs the same or more than the 24-70. Add in more lens swaps, thus more chances for dust to get on the sensor, thus more chances to miss shots, and for me primes don't make sense. I also considered focusing speed and accuracy, an area where the 24-70 stands almost at the top. The 50s might have a wider aperture, but they are slow to focus, and in my experience miss focus more often to boot.

PB PM said:
It's all a matter of shooting style, the 24-70mm F2.8G is my most used lens. The 24mm, 50mm and 70mm spots are used almost equally, and is much easier to use than constantly switching prime lenses for different shots.

Given the choice at a wedding, I'd have one body with the 24-70mm F2.8 and another with the 70-200 F2.8. For the fast lenses to be truly useful they need to be stopped down to F2.8 or more anyway, so you are almost wasting money on the wide aperture (IMO). As for the 50mm F1.8, it is a nice lens, it's also my least used lens (most likely going to sell it).

2.8->1.8 is very much a biiiig difference for lowlight. My 1.8 is possibly my second most used lens. not to say you're wrong, just that fast zooms aren't always fast enough for everything, and when I'm expected to get the shot, 1.8 is absolutely worth it.

kyoshinikon said:
Do you zoom? I am going to dump my mid for a 50mm due to weight and size...

You know how I zoom? I walk forward. The 50mm keeps things looking "real." for ceremonies long teles are great for isolating the couple and making sure the subject focus is entirely on them. For receptions, its a party, isolating subjects is not how I shoot parties. Those are about everybody. And the 50 fits them all in 95% of the time. I tend to leave it at 2 or 2.2 for the extra DOF and then shoot standing back, using every photon of available light.

Do you zoom? I am going to dump my mid for a 50mm due to weight and size...

It's all a matter of shooting style, the 24-70mm F2.8G is my most used lens. The 24mm, 50mm and 70mm spots are used almost equally, and is much easier to use than constantly switching prime lenses for different shots.

Given the choice at a wedding, I'd have one body with the 24-70mm F2.8 and another with the 70-200 F2.8. For the fast lenses to be truly useful they need to be stopped down to F2.8 or more anyway, so you are almost wasting money on the wide aperture (IMO). As for the 50mm F1.8, it is a nice lens, it's also my least used lens (most likely going to sell it).

briantek said:
I currently have a 24-70 2.8 and I am thinking about switching to primes (35/85 1.4). The only thing I am really worried about is shooting weddings. If I don't have room to move around much, will I be missing my zoom? I have a 16-35 f/4 for wide angle so I wouldn't care about losing the 24mm end. The biggest reason for switching would be the low-light performance and weight/size difference. Any thoughts? BTW I have a D800.

Thanks!

In all honesty, just get a 50 and call it a day. That is if you can't afford a 70-200 of any kind. 70-200 range is really the most useful, if you need something wider than 70, you're probably too close. I dunno, I shoot with a fly on the wall type attitude, if anyone notices me taking pictures I'm not doing my job well. So I tend to stick with longer lenses. That might just be my style, but it's worked well for me. That is for the ceremony...
For the reception party, I leave the 70-200 on until the couples first dance/kiss is over and then throw on either a 50 1.8.

If you ask me, midrange zooms are a waste of money. i.e. the 24-70. Not wide enough to really be a "wide" lens, and not long enough to be a tele. I rented a 24-70 once, it spent it's entire existence on my camera all the way out at 70. My set up (will eventually be after I find the money for it all) a 20 prime for landscapes, a 50 prime night receptions, a 28-300 for all purpose outdoor work (the 28-300 is a fantasticly sharp lens throughout it's zoom range, but isn't fast enough for indoor weddings) and a 70-200 2.8 for indoor work.
why both a 28-300 AND a 70-200? well the 70-200 is all together to huge and heavy for walking around the park, and the extra reach of the 300 makes my casual birding leaps and bounds easier!
Sorry for the long winded answer lol

Get a Sigma 35mm f/1.4. The sharpness is amazing, the build is top notch, and it is much cheaper than the Nikon. Use the savings to get the 85mm 1.8. Just check out the Sigma 35mm reviews:

http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/86-sigma-35mm-f14-review

I'd stick with the 24-70mm myself. Too much happens in short order at a wedding to be swapping lenses, unless you have two bodies and can mount both and simply switch cameras.