16-35mm f2.8 L for wedding?

Anyone use this lens for Wedding work such as the ceremony? Posts of

any ceremony pictures using this lens would be

appreciated.Thanks<P>Elaine Marie

16-35/2.8L on a full frame Canon digital. Top photo @ 16mm ... bottom photo @ 35mm.

 

At 16mm, you need to keep an eye on edge distortion, and it's effect on people (like the lady

in pink to the far right in my 16mm photo). This is less of a problem with cropped frame

digital cameras.<div></div>

With a crop frame digital camera, this is the field of view you'd capture IF you were standing

in exactly the same spot I was when shooting the 16mm full frame version shown above. To

get as wide of a shot you'd have to move back a considerable distance.<div></div>

Oh, by the way, the top 2 shots were NOT shot from the same location. I moved closer in for

the 35mm shot. The zoom ratio doesn't produce that big of a spread ; -)

great lens. these are from using it with my 20D.<div></div>

okay - those aren't ceremony shots, but if you want to use the 16-35mm range for a ceremony, it's a great lens. here's another shot.<div></div>

Thanks Marc and Conrad.<P> I shoot with the Canon 20D and the 16-35 2.8 L is my fastest lens besides my 50 1.4. I will be shooting inside a small church and not sure yet of how they will have the lighting. I know there are no windows just recessed lighting but the bride isnt sure yet how light she will have it. I won't know till the rehearsal.Thanks for the samples.<P>Elaine Marie

I use it. It works well for me although I use it mostly for pre-ceremony work. I like to use a fisheye, 24-105 on a 5d and the 135/2 or 70-200 on another body.

 

If you plan to use it for the ceremony on a 20d, that would be like a 25 - 55 or so. Not bad, but you would likely need some more reach than the 55 end. What do you plan to use (or should I ask, do you plan another body?) with it?

I use one with my 20D. For the long shots during the ceremony, it is fine. For the close-up shots, you're going to need telephotos, preferably fast telephotos if you can't use flash during the ceremony. f2.8 is not exactly real fast for available light work inside a church, even at ISO 800, sometimes.

 

The only problem I have with this lens is outdoors. Because of the 77mm front element/filter size, it flares easily. I've tried various things, including using the hood made for the 24 f1.4 L on it and an adjustable rubber hood, and nothing works well all the time. I've taken to putting a Flarebuster on my bracket when I'm shooting outdoors. It is the only thing that works fast, when I need it, and where I need it.

If you're worried about shooting available light, and it is very dim, use a tripod with a reasonable ISO. That's how ceremony images were made with the slower films of yesterday. Most ceremony events don't involve lots of motion, so if you wait for the "quiet" moments, you'll still be able to get sharp photos. The handheld, extremely high ISO trend is one born of wedding photographers pushing the good low light ability of digital and of IS technology. Both are great, but there is no reason you can't get good images the "old-fashioned" way--observe, anticipate, know what is to happen (and be in the right place at the right time), be fast and comfortable with your tripod, shoot at the right times. Also, know the long shutter speed capability of your camera and stability of your tripod--and use mirror lock up if necessary.

Thanks David and Nadine<P> David I looked at your folio and was able to see by the details listed some of the ones you used this lens with. By the way nice work!

Nadine as always thanks for the great advise. I think the church will be fairly lit by recessed ceiling lights....no windows. The bride was not sure yet how she wants the lights. Not to dark. I quess I will find out when I attend the rehersal. I think I will be able to use flash if neccesary (Canon 580EX with lightsphere 2). Also the pastor has no boundries for the photographer ,just not in his way he said. I will bring my tripod and use it for some variety.I don't really have a nice telephoto at this point the only thing I have is the 28-135 3.5. I guess it would work if the lighting is dim but I can use my flash.

 

Elaine Marie

Nadine, you've mentioned the flare issue with that lens before which perplexed me because

I've never notice the problem. In thinking about it, I wonder if it is because I put a B+W Multi

Resistant filter on it from day one?

Marc--could be, but I kind of doubt it. I have a multi-coated filter on mine too, and have taken it off sometimes to see if it made a difference. I think I am "forced" to shoot in more backlit situations than you are, perhaps. I'm in California and some of my clients like direct sun in their photos--formals and such, plus one doesn't have any control over outdoor ceremony orientation to the sun. Last weekend, I had to shoot formals backlit because that just happened to be the situation at the "altar" where the clients wanted the formals. Its worse when the sun is lower in the sky, too. But with the Flare Buster, I was OK. Funny how that silly-looking thing works.

Yeah Nadine, Michigan isn't exactly the Sun Capital.

I LOVE 16-35.<div></div>

33mm<div></div>

I used it as my main lens for few months till I tried and fell in love with my other lens L

28!!!!-70 that I had all along. As a photojournalist can't help but quote Capa- if you are not

close enough you are not good enough. Still don't have 70-200 and still get the buisness. But

it's not in any way an example.

Not sure Capa was talking about a telephoto zoom.

we are not talking about telephotolens. It's about 16-35.