16-35L 2.8 or 85 f/1.2 for weddings?

[JtheVGKing]

I think I'm going to buy a new lens soon, but I can't decide on which one, so I wanna hear what you guys think. I'm torn between the 16-35L and the 85L f/1.2 II. Concerning weddings, the wide will be great for group shots and outdoor shots. The 85 will be great for during the ceremony and portraits of the bride. In your experience, which do you think will be more effective?

Now, as far as just all-around photography is concerned, I feel that the 16-35 might be more useful as I don't have an ultra wide for the 5D. I have the 10-22 for my 40D, so I can always go with that, but I feel that I wouldn't be doing a full frame camera justice without getting an ultra wide angle for it.

As far as the 85 is concerned though, I would really like to get the best portrait lens I can buy, but I already have the 85 f/1.8. I don't know if you know anything about portrait lenses or what not, but do you think it's worth the upgrade for the bokeh and IQ?

[StudioPhenom]

ha..ha..ha.. I need to read everything.... I'd say 85L.

[Subimatt]

since you have an 85 1.8 already, id say the 16-35 first. I use mine alot more than my 85L.

[bnlearle]

I use the 16-35mm EXCLUSIVELY for dance shots (the fun ones - not the first dance). That's it. Nothing else. I couldn't imagine using it for group shots unless there were 60 people, or something. In which case, just use your 10-22.

I hear the 85 1.8 is much closer in quality to the L version than the 50 1.4 is. I personally think the 50L on the the 5D is the best combo alive. I'd say get that ;)

IMO the 50L can get the same shots (or very similar) that the 35L AND the 85L can get. The 85L limits you with how tight it is and the 35L limits you with how wide it is. The 50L is right in the middle and can look like either lenses depending on a few steps forward or a few steps back. This is why I love the 50mm range on a FF.

Having said that, I know many people prefer the 85mm range. Just my 2 cents ;)

Bobby

[howiele]

I agree with subimatt. since you already have a 85 why duplicate. The 85 f/1.8 is a great lens as it is. The 16-35 would be more practical and you could get alot of use out of it.

[SuzyView]

I hardly ever go wider than the 24-70 for weddings as there is too much distortion for people on the sides, unless that is your style. Only the person in the middle has a flattering figure, for instance with the 16mm end. The 85 1.2 is an excellent portrait lens and Jim is going to let me use his on Saturday so I can see if I want one. Although, I do love my 85 1.8.

[jonwhite]

You've got the 85mm range covered 3 ways with your current setup, but if your 40D dies the widest lens you have is 24mm. in tight spaces that may not be wide enough for some things so the 16-35 would be a nice addition imo.

I guess the other question to ask is "why do you want another lens?"

Usually its an overriding need of some sorts that will force a purchase but maybe thats not the case if your torn between two very different lenses in which case maybe the money would be better spent on something else, training course, or other equipment?

[picturecrazy]

24mm on FF is actually pretty wide.

I'm a wide shooting whore. I probably use it too much. One thing I've found about ultrawides is that I rarely need absolute speed. You can handhold ultrawides at insanely low shutter speeds and it'll still turn out great. DOF at ultrawide focal lengths is huge anyhow, so you won't get much subject isolation out of a 16-35 unless you are like 1 ft away from your subject. And if you're THAT close, a 17-40 (or your 10-22) will also give you subject isolation too.

Which brings me to my suggestion. I personally am not a fan of hte 85L. Optically, it's fantastic. But it's fricken huge and heavy, and the focusing is so slow it reminds me of my $100 75-300mm lens. It totally drops the ball when I need it during dancefloor shots. The 85 1.8 is a killer lens and the AF is excellent, and it's optics are superb too! Since you want a portrait lens or a wide lens, why not have both? What about the 135mm F/2L and the 17-40 F/4L? Both of them together cost less than an 85L. And 135mm is my favourite traditional portrait length; it's better than FF 85mm imo.

[form]

85L is a fun toy for engagements and nice environments, or places with some desirable but not-too-bright ambient lighting. It's very good for portraiture where the subject can stand still so the focus can lock on. It's really not that good for action photos. Maybe a smarter AF system could help with that. The background blurring is greater, and more dreamy at the wider aperture. It blurs the background slightly more than the 135L wide open, but gets more of the environment in view.

The 85 f/1.8 is almost as good optically, but not quite. It has stronger purple fringing and is not quite as sharp wide open. The AF is much faster and therefore it is better for action shots. It does not blur background quite as much, but the bokeh is still good. Both 85mm lenses have a very long minimum focus distance, which limits their flexibility. The 135L allows tighter framing.

The tradeoff of 1 stop of light can sometimes be the difference between 1/50 and 1/100 sec. shots of subjects, but that's usually important only during a ceremony, especially the processional. At that time, the lens needs to lock focus well too. The problem with the 85L is when it misses focus and goes through the entire range before reacquiring; those few seconds are painfully long when a particular occasion only lasts a few seconds.

Considering things again, I might keep the 85 f/1.8 and buy a 50 f/1.2 and 24 f/1.4, instead of selling the 85 f/1.8 and buying an 85L and 35L. It was not an error, but also not necessarily the best choice. I still like the effect of the 35L, which the 24L can't quite imitate, but I would rather have a wider fast prime than the 35L.

[Bkolowski111]

I agree with Picturecrazy. Get a 17-40 and 135L. Ive played around with a 135L on my buddy's 5D, and the results are amazing.

[caught14]

I also use the 16-35 exclusively for dancing shots. It also works well in preparation shots because you sometimes need to go wide for tight spaces in churches and hotel rooms. Obviously there is some distortion at the widest end, but it still covers the 24 and 35 ranges which are perfect in my book for prep shots.

The 85 1.2 is really nice, but as others have said, it's best for when you can take your time (bridals, engagements, portraits, etc.) and not for fast moving action where you need the quick AF.

I would second the idea to go for a 17-40L and 135L. Both are great lenses in terms of IQ. I contemplated the 17-40 vs. the 16-35, but in the end, I wanted a faster aperture. Plus, you already own the 85 1.8 which is also a great lens.

[JtheVGKing]

I went with the 85 1.2--I just couldn't pass it up, I don't know why.

My next purchase will be a 17-40 I think, and then a 135L, as both the 135 and 85 have their uses.

[form]

The next lens on my list (if I had your equipment setup) would be a 24L.

[tsw910]

everyone here has a great point about the lenses mentioned ..

50L is totally amazing ! .. i so regret selling it for the 24L II ... now i have sold the 24L and seeking the 50L back

85L is a lens that ... well i think its needed in the bag .. at a wedding shooting glam and portraits .. WOW ! and yes, its crazy slow .. but thats the only lens i use when they introduce the bridal couple and wedding party

50L .. damn, you can shoot the entire wedding on just that one lens !

24L .. i couldn't justify the cost of a wide fast prime .. and when i shoot wide, i am rarely at 1.4 unless the light needs me to be at 1.4 .. but my 17-40 will cover wide group shots or dance floor stuff perfectly fine .. and to get the type of shot i love shooting .. i would have to be in the brides face .. where as the 50L is like butta !!!! :)

16-35 - i also couldn't justify the cost of doubling the 17-40 .. and like i said, in wide, i am rarely at 1.4 and most of the time its duty is groups and dance floor

135L .. well .. its the most perfect lens canon has made to date of its value

so thats just my .02 of the lens mentioned

[form]

Hmm...I usually use the 35L for grand entrances. If I had the 24L it might be the one I choose instead for that purpose. I need the shots to be fairly wide and fast aperture allows for quicker flash recycle (I don't have battery packs) and more ambient light.

[tsw910]

i too dont use a battery pack .. but then again, everyone uses different lenses for different purpose .. and with the 24L it wasn't what i thought, need and want .. for my shooting style, 50L is definitely one lens i totally miss