35/1.4 or 16/352.8 with 50/1.4

[canon_gurl]

I have a question all the way from New Zealand.

 

I do wedding photography with an EOS3 and a 24/70L2.8 lens. I just

bought a EOS 1DS MK II and am considering purchasing either the

35/1.4L or purchasing 16/35L2.8 and a 50/1.4. Keep the 50mm in the

bag for darker conditions.

 

35/1.4 is the most expensive with 16/35 a little cheaper and the

50/1.4 realtively quite cheap.

 

I try and not use flash at weddings and keep it simple an natural.

 

What you think is the best option for me .Thanks for any help you

can offer me.

[andrew_ito]

Given that choice I'd go for the 16-35L and the 50mm 1.4 for sure. The 1DmkII has a

1.3x crop factor that you'll have to compensate for with wider lenses than your full frame

EOS3. Since you're already covering the 35mm range with the excellent 24-70L I'd go for

the wide zoom. My ?.02....

[andrew_ito]

Ooops. Just read that you have a 1Ds Mark II and not the 1DmkII. Personally, I'd still go

for the 16-35L though.

[blueworldstudios]

For ambient light, the 35 is the only way to go. The 50 is built like garbage and won't

focus reliably in low light, and is a slow focuser when it will work.

 

I would go with the 35.

[berton_chang4]

E.J. are you sure about the 50/1.4 - is it build like shit? or are you thinking about the other 50mm?

 

yeah 35/1.4 for sure. Unless you want people looking too stretched forget the 16-35/2.8 - but it's still cool though.

[wgpinc]

Try the 35mm 2.0. Great lens throughout the range, light and sharp. Best bargain in Canonland - 90% of what the 1.4 will do for you for at 20% of the cost. Mine stays on my dRebel much of the time. Get it and the 50 1.4 and throw in the 24 or 20 or the 16-35mm. Cheers!<div></div>

[jeniffer_stu]

35 is a ideal range for photos in wedding,also has a very good contrast no to mention the low light big advantage.

 

since you are making money and you have to take better pictures than the average guest buy a 35/1.4 .

 

the 35/1.4 are excelent

[west_cork]

Maybe try the 35mm f2 - it's a great little lens, not too scary when pointed at people. Very usable wide open. I love mine, and will keep it even when I get a 35mm 1.4.

 

That would leave you nearly enough for a 135mm 2.0 as well - that's a lens you will love.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>My 50/1.4 USM's build quality is decent; not up to the standards of my 300/4L IS USM, but the latter is much bigger, heavier, more expensive, and is built like a tank. I can't complain about the 50/1.4's build.</p>

 

<p>Nor can I complain about its low-light focusing. In good lighting, its AF can't keep up with my other lenses and their faster AF drive systems (all ring USM with inner focusing, whereas the 50/1.4 uses a micro USM and has to schlep a lot more glass around). In poor lighting, its fast aperture lets it catch up and, in some cases, beat my other lenses.</p>

 

<p>You present us with two options: more speed at a moderately wide focal length you already have covered, or more speed at a normal focal length you already have covered plus the ability to go wider than you currently can. Do you need to go wider than you currently can? If so, the 35/1.4 does nothing for you, and the 16-35 is the solution, optionally with the 50/1.4 if you find 50 to be a useful focal length and f/2.8 to be too slow. If you don't need to go wider, why even consider the 16-35, since it's no faster than your current lens?</p>

[willio]

Since you do have a full frame 1DSMII, I'd go with the 16-35/L, the only reason you should

consider 35f1.4 is either you dont have the 50/1.4, and/or using a camera with a 1.3 or

1.6 crop factor like the rest of us here.

 

16-35 is Godsend, it stays on with me 99% of the time.

[majid]

There won't be a practical difference between the 1DsII and the 3D as far as lenses are concerned. What do you find most limiting in the 24-70? The low end? Get a 16-35. The upper end? Get a 85mm f/1.4 or 1.8, or a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (and a gym membership for the weight-lifting preparation). Low-light performance? Get the 35mm f/1.4 or the 50mm f/1.4, depending on which perspective you prefer.

 

One way you can make an objective decision is simply to shoot a few weddings with the 24-70 on the 1DsII. You can then use the EXIF information from the photos to find out which focal lengths you gravitate to. You might be surprised by the results...

[yakim_peled1]

If money was not a problem, I'd get the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4. As it is very much a problem, I got the 24/2.8 and 35/2. I suspect that 16mm is too wide for most applications on a FF body but the zoom convenience (i.e. the ability to quickly frame your subjects) seems a must for a wedding photographer.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.