16-35 or 24-70 for weddings?

<p>Which would be the most useful in your experience to attach to one body?<br>

I would also have 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 70-200 2.8 and a second body.<br>

Thanks</p>

 

<p>For full frame body--24-70mm. For cropped sensor body--16-35mm.</p>

<p>5D body. I thought that would be the answer.<br>

Thanks</p>

Well, that was easy. ;-)

<p>Of course it's the 24-70. You can shoot an entire wedding with this lens sometimes.</p>

<p>Yep - with the 5D the 24-70 is a perfect choice. Throw the 70-200 on the 2nd body and use it if you need to be farther away from the action. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>I use Sigma 17-35. I bought a 16-35, but I actually liked the sigma better. <br>

More useful? The 24-70 is much more useful. <br>

But, super wide angle is so great... i would go for the 16-35. </p>

<p>On a 5D? ... 24-105/4L would be my recommendation. </p>

Paul, I own both for the 5d mk ii and I love both! The 24-70 was my first L lense so it will always old a special place inmy

heart. I tend to use it during the following situations: professionals and recessionals, formals, and situations that are likely

to be unpredictable. The 50 1.4 and 12mm extension tube was my next purchase. That extension tube effectively turns

my 50mm into a kick ass macro lens. I always bring this lens out for ring shots and any other detail shots. Also if I am

stuck in an impossibly dark situation, it is my fastest lens. Then I bought the 16-35. When you are trying to paint a picture

of the whole story of what is going on, this lens cant be beat! I will briefly use it in a ceremony to get a shot of the whole

room and the bride's dress from behind. Then during the reception once the dancing starts i bring this puppy out. It does

a great job of getting shots of what is oing on from above even though I am only 5'4" tall. If you bring a step ladder, then

it is even more powerful. You get a ton more dof with this lens at these shorter focal lengths and it focuses soooooo

quickly. I like the light distortion that you get when shooting guests that are closer to the lens and the sense of motion

you get from. You don't get that feeling with the 24-70. Last piece of glass I bought is the 135l. Oh gosh is it amazing!

For speeches, first dances, you name it if you need a close up and fabu bokeh this is the lens for you.

<p>I go the prime way. I sold my 24-70...twice...sometimes I miss it, other times I am reminded that I prefer the images that can only come out of my primes. I have a 16-35 that was seeing more use recently, but as of last wedding I am going to be using the 24L instead to avoid the habit of ultrawide. </p>

<p>16-35 for specific shots now, primes for almost everything else. I like the images better.</p>

<p>I agree with Nadine . . . on a 1.6 crop body (with the other lenses you mentions at my disposal), I would shoot with the 16-35mm f2.8 L. The 50mm f1.4 will make a great lens for shooting here and there, but the 16-35mm f2.8 L on a 7 D or 60 D (or some other body, like a 50 D, T3i or T2i) would make a great documentary lens, covering the equivalent of about 24-55mm. I could definitely shoot a wedding with a 16-35mm f2.8 L and a 50mm f1.4 on a couple of 1.6 crop cameras. With a full-frame or 1.3 crop body I would pick the 24-70mm f2.8 L, but I would prefer the 24-105mm f4 L IS (because of the IS). You can shoot short depth-of-field shots with the 50mm and the 70-200mm zoomed into 200mm. A couple of nice primes, like the 35mm f1.4 L and the 85mm f1.2 L for dark and short depth-of-field situations would compliment a 24-105mm f4 L IS nicely. Don't forget the 135mm f2 L. Those four lenses would be all I would need/want for shooting weddings with a pair of 5 D Mk II bodies. Of course, you can't be the zoom pair . . . 24-70mm f2.8 L and 70-200mm f2.8 L IS. If you want to be able to shoot crazy cool shots too, get the Tokina 10-17mm zooming macro fisheye. You can do things with that baby that you can't do with anything else. It's a super creative lens. A Lensbaby is a good idea too (for shooting things like the wedding cake, center pieces, glasses, the ring(s), invitations, and place settings.</p>

<p>I shall try the 24-70 first I think although I am intrigued as to Marc's suggestion of the 24-105. From what I remember Marc now shoots Sony with the in body IS so I can only think it is the IS aspect of the lens that swings it for his recommendation over the extra reach.</p>

<p>Re the 24-105mm--good choice IF you won't miss f2.8, since the widest aperture is f4. This probably means you have other, wider aperture lenses, namely wide aperture primes, for those times you need the aperture.</p>

<p>IS is nice if you already have it (IMHO), but isn't (for me) a 'must have' or as useful because you can't stop subject motion with IS. During a ceremony, you may be at f4, and with IS, can shoot in dim light at 1/15th (without hand shake). It is possible, for those times where people are really not moving at all (the pauses between motion). However, the images are not going to be as sharp as if you shot it at 1/60th or 1/125th with a wide aperture prime.</p>

<p>I worked as an unofficial photographer at an indian wedding this past summer, and the only lenses they used were the 24-105L, and the 24-70. This company does very nice work, and they are very busy as well because of the quality of their work.</p>

<p>The 24-105/4 is a great lens, and cheap, but being limited to f4 is a pretty significant impediment for a lot of wedding work. Overall, I quite enjoy being able to shoot @ f2.8, and it made the difference when I sold the 24-105 to get a 24-70. Personally, on the 'normal' zooms, I find f4 to be far more limiting w/ IS than f2.8 w/o IS.</p>

<p>Of the two (24-70/2.8 vs. 16-35/2.8) I'd definitely advise the 24-70/2.8. It's vastly more useful during 'normal' wedding operations, and even though rarely a wedding goes by that I don't use the 16-35 here and there, I could easily do without if I needed to. Not so w/ the 24-70. Another aspect of the 16-35/2.8 is that WO, it's IQ is less than stunning. definitely worth stopping down. (IMHO)</p>

<blockquote>

<h1>16-35 or 24-70 for weddings?</h1>

</blockquote>

<p>No offence, and I couldn't shoot a wedding to save my life, but that's a very naive question: Just picture yourself trying to get unobtrusive candid close ups, with the 16-35, LOL.</p>

<p>Anyway, you might consider the 24-105 as well. It is a notch down in overall sharpness, loses a stop, and can't get <em>quite</em> as close, but it's very color neutral, has more reach, and the IS is a <em>big</em> plus.</p>

<p>I'm sure there is more to shooting a wedding than unobtrusive candid close ups. No offence taken.</p>

<p>Both would be best. Not an either/or question.</p>

<p>I would bring the 16-35, for sure, but not as a main lens.</p>

<p>Since you already have the 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 70-200 2.8 and a second body, you already have the midrange and telephoto covered.</p>

<p>What you don't have is wide angle. So 16-35 on one body and 70-200 on the other and shoot accordingly.<br /> The 16-18mm of the 16-35 will probably get only limited use. But you get much more variation with the 16-35 than with the 24-70mm where 24mm is you widest option and 70mm is already covered by your 70-200.</p>

<p>For a one camera shooter the 24-70 would have been the best compromise though as you could easily switch between wide and tele without having to swap lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I used a 7D and a 24-70 for most of the day. It's not a full frame camera, so perhaps technically, according to the pros, I should have used a different lens, but it served me very well. I used my 70-200 for close ups at the church and reception, as well as my 85mm. Did I do it wrong? It sure felt right to me. I suppose it's what you feel comfortable with using. </p>

<p>The 24-70 2.8 is the best choice of any mentioned IMHO. I could not shoot a wedding without this lens. It has the ablitity to do ring shots and portraits it is the most versatile lens in my bag. I would rank it much higher than the 24-105 4.0 because of the extra stops you get and I have owned both and find the 24-70 I believe it a superior lens. I also have a 17-40 which I use to use all the time on my 40d - but now that I have gone to 5dII I use it only on my infrared camera.</p>

I only shoot about 10 or so shots with the 70-200. I have the other 2 lenses and enjoy working with the 16 -35. I don't have the newer 16 - 35, the old one for me is just fine and it works great at receptions when space is limited.

 

The 24-70 stays in my bag as a backup. I prefer the 24-105 IS L. It's lighter in weight. Compared to the 24-70 the 24-70 is a tad bit sharper and offers the 2.8. The 24-105 is a bit slower, but I can't remember ever wanting to change lenses just to use the 2.8 feature.

 

So, to answer your question use the 24-70 and the 16-35.

 

I really love the 70-200 because it's so sharp and you can create fantastic shots of the bride and groom. All of these lenses are so sharp I often use a Softar filter, so you don't see every tiny mark of the bride or grooms face, also the mothers. From a distance, such as full length I will remove the Softar filter. This filter is for close-ups.

By the way, like Joey Allen I love prime lenses, but for whatever reason the 1Ds Mk3 cameras attract a lot of dust, so I kind of hate changing lenses. Thats when dust seems to get inside of the sensors. I don't want to mess with removing dust spots in photoshop. I have several primes including a 400mm. That is the sharpest large lens I own.

<p>I guess, since you already have a 70-200, the 24-70mm f2.8 L would be a great choice. For most instances you really don't need wider than 24mm. I love to shoot wide though, so if it were me, since you already have a 50mm f1.4, which sits right between the 16-35mm f2.8 L and the 70-200, I would get the 16-35 and have a 3 lens kit. Then, when you can, you can get a second and eventually a third body. 3 bodies might sound like overkill, but those three lenses on three bodies would be AWESOME. You just need an assistant to carry stuff then.</p>

<p>;)</p>