16 - 35mm f2.8 or 70 - 200mm f2.8 for a wedding

Quick question. If you had to choose only one of these lenses as

your PRIMARY lens in your next wedding shoot, what would you choose

and why. Canon 16-35mm Straight f2.8 or a Canon 70-200mm Straight

f2.8. Remember you can only choose ONE. :) Hope everyone is

staying busy.

 

J

Depends on what else is in your bag. I don't think on a film or full frame digital either would suite me. On a 1.6 crop camera the 16-35 would be my choice if I had to choose but it certialy wouldn't cover the whole event.

What is the purpose of this question? My answer is neither, since I have Nikon bodies and those lenses won't do me any good. :-)

 

Seriously, if I can only use one lens for a wedding, it would be the equivalent of a 28-70mm/f2.8 (or 24-70) for film. At least to me, it doesn't make any sense to be limited to one lens for a wedding and it certainly shouldn't be a fairly wide zoom or a short tele zoom.

Although I would love to leave the 70-200 on all day, I don't imagine how you can. So 16-35 is my vote. (although I don't shoot Canon)

I would have to go with the 70-200mm 2.8. I use this lens about 80% of the time during weddings. It allows me to zoom in without getting too close and disturbing the event. I also find the IS helps TREMENDOUSLY during the actual ceremony where I do not use flash.

 

Just my vote.

Ok, let me clarify a little. I recently purchased the 16-35mm for my bag, but am starting to second guess myself. I currently have a canon 20D with a 18-55mm f3.5 and was looking for something more for myself. Anyways, I have a wedding shoot that I am doing in June and wondered which lens would be a better fit for myself. Considering I have the 18-55, I am now thinking I should have got the 70-200mm. I still have time to return it so any and all help/opinions are helpful.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

J

First of all, while I have shot a few weddings, I am not an experienced wedding photographers as some folks here are. But IMO, you made the right choice. After a 28-70, I would rather have a wide angle first. However, it also depends on the wedding. Last year I shot a wedding where I was restricted from shooting from the back of the church with no flash during the ceremony, and I used a 300mm/f2.8 on a tripod with fast film.

I'd clearly go for the wider angle. You wouldn't be able to capture groups with the longer zoom, especially with the digital crop factor.

If its the wedding your concerned about I would return the 16-35 and get the 24-70 f/2.8L. 16-35 is a usefull range but won't cover the whole day very well. 35mm will be too wide for some shots. Since you already have the 18-55 you are duplicating all but 2mm of the 16-35 range. Sure the 18-55 isn't nearly as nice a lens but it will be enough to get buy with for the shots you need in the 18-24 range and then the 24-70 covers your most used focal lengths.

 

Here is my recommendation for the 1.6 crop cameras.

 

1) 16-35 f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

 

2) if money is a problem switch the 16-35 to the 17-40 f/4 and the 50mm f/1.4 to the 50mm f/1.8.

 

3) If thats still to much scrap the 17-40 and stick with your 18-55

 

4) If that is still too much get the 50mm f/1.8 and the 24-70 and keep your 18-55

 

5) If that is still too much get the 50mm f/1.8 and a 85mm f/1.8 and keep the 18-55.

 

 

Guidlines:

 

Always have at least one relatively fast prime lens. The 50mm f/1.8 is cheeper then most of my filters so unless you want the f/1.4 get it.

 

You will want something 70mm or longer in your kit.

 

You will want something 28mm or wider in your kit.

 

If you aren't carrying a tripod with you everywhere you want IS on your long lenses or you will get motion blur. Remember the 1.6 crop makes them longer so you need a higher shutter speed.

Thank you everyone for your help.

 

Steven - I have chosen to follow your advice. I will return the 16-35, get the 24-70mm 2.8 with the 50mm 1.8.

 

This will give me the 18-55mm f3.5, 50mm f1.8 and the 24-70mm 2.8.

 

I know that this may not be the best kit for weddings, but IT will get the job done, right. Thanks again everyone.

 

J

Every venue and every wedding is different. I've found that a longer lens, especially given the 1.6x crop factor, being at a distance is indeed unobtrusive, but with too many potential obtrusions and obstacles between the lens and the subject. For me, the 16-35 2.8 is the better bet. The prime I have in my bag is the aforementioned 50 1.8, and for the money, there's no reason NOT to own it. But to get off a good crowd shot with that 50mm, I have to back out to the parking lot (and unfortunately find the walls get in the way). On the other hand, the 16-35 2.8, isn't that a $1400 lens? I'm currently saving for that lens. After looking at the galleries on your website Jason, it looks kinda like you're a 16-35 2.8 kind of guy.

 

Steve, you mentioned that the overlap of his current 18-55 is duplicating all but 2mm of the 16-35. True, except the 18-55 is an adequate lens, with an f range of 3.5-5.6. If I'm understanding Jason's question correctly, he's looking for a better f value. Plus, the 16-35 is a way better lens. Plus Steve, you bring up a good point about the IS for the 70-200. Absolutely!

 

Take it some place crowded and test it, like a bar you would be comfortable with.<div></div>

Jon - You are certainly right I am a 16-35mm 2.8 kind of guy and yes it is that expensive and in my opinion (which may be somewhat limited) it is worth every penny. It is amazing to work with. BUT, with that said, although I am a portrait kind of guy, I really what to make sure I can cover a wedding day. I could always stick with the 16-35mm 2.8 and the 18-55mm 3.5 that I have and get a 50mm f1.8, but what am I NOT going to be able to cover as well. The candid's right.. Well, who buys candid's anyway. SO, what does everyone think. Thanks Jon.

Easy - 16-35mm. The closer you can get to your subject the better your photos will come out in the end. The 70-200 would be way way too limited and would restric your capture capability tremendeously. However, if i only had one lens, i would grab something in the 28-70mm 2.8 range. Mater of fact, i primarily leave my Tamron 28-75mm mounted to one camera body and my Sigma 15-30 3.5 mounted to another. Only on specific shots do i mount my 70-200mm 2.8.

Jammey - You bring up a very good point. What about this. For the amount of money I spent on the 16-35mm 2.8 lens, I could get Tamron both 17-35 2.8 AND a 28-75 2.8 and still have about 500 bucks. What about that. I know I am giving up a little quality in the 17-35mm, but really how much. This way I statisfy both needs. Anyone?

 

J

Well Jason - you can look at my wedding portfolio for the answer. Quality loss? I can only vouch for the Tamron 28-75 2.8, in which case i would say NONE optically, however, construction wise is another story. But we are talking about WEDDINGS here not mountain climbing. Most optical reviews say the Tamron is equal if not better than the canon L series equivalent. All my photos was either taken with the Tamron 28-75, Sigma 15-30mm (hightly recommend - optically great but big), or the Sigma 70-200mm. A few were taken with the canon 50mm 1.4 or 100mm 2.0 but not many. I would highly recommend the 28-75.....it's light, fast, small and well built. I have not regreated it since day one. Good luck!

Jammey - Impressive, very. I am leaning towards your advice. So much more for my money. Very good idea, and your right I don't see a quality issue.

 

Thanks

J

Jason, Bob Atkins did a very pleasing study of the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4.

 

That and the 28-75/2.8 Xr Di would be great for the purpose.

Depends on the camera. On a 20D the 16-35L is nice but I'd opt for the 10-22 for WAY

less money. If we're talking about a 1.3x or full frame camera then I'd go with the 70-200

IS, but not the 70-200L (non-IS).

I know you've made your decision, but one thing to always consider when posing a

question like this is what style of photography you shoot. I pride myself as a documentary

style wedding photographer and therefore the 70-200 mm would be my first choice. It

would allow me to get right in there and get the shot without disturbing the moment as I

would have to with the 16-35 mm. For those wedding photographers who tend to shoot in

a more traditional manner, the 16-35 mm might be the best choice. Just a thought.

J Moore - your on a dance floor in a realitivly small reception area, lots of people around, you need to capture the moments. What? You mean it's almost Dark and i need enough fill flash to drag the shttur and stop the action? I'm at ISO 1600 2.8 and i still need more shutter speed? Now - how would you cover this dancing action sufficiently at 70mm (112mm w/ 1.6 crop) such that you can go wide and get in close? Just a thought - it would be nearly impossible w/ 70-200mm.

" Now - how would you cover this dancing action sufficiently at 70mm (112mm w/ 1.6 crop) such that you can go wide and get in close? Just a thought - it would be nearly impossible w/ 70-200mm."

 

Two cameras :)

Exactly Michael, however, We were talking about 1 lens :)

Depends, where you feel most comfortable. If you like to be inmidst of people, go for the 16-35. Rather like to be the "invisible) (still difficult with awhite 70-200 IS with hood :-))) go for the 70-200.

 

Then, it also depends which part of the zoom ranges is crucial for you. 16mm on a 1d is 21 real mm or about 25,6 mm on a 20D. Thus, basically you get a 25-56mm standrad zoom lens with a 16-35. So, if you're starting out, get the 16-35 first. You'll get too much into your way with the 70-200 (112-320mm zoom) You can't back off that much in many situations to get what you like.

 

Therefore, the answer is easy: get a 35/1.4 mm as your normal lens (no flash needed as well ;-)