16-35L II vs 24-70L for weddings

[Dasani]

Hi everyone, i'd like to see what's your opinion about these two lens for weddings. I'm thinking of trading the 24-70 to a 16-35 to go a little wider with lower aperture than 17-40 f4 that i also currently have. The reason because i also have a 50mm that i can switch if needed and i do have lenses for longer reach for ceremony or candit shots.

Much appreciate your thoughts

[Thomas Campbell]

All depends on your style. I don't like using either lens at weddings. I think they are both on the lower-end of quality for L lenses Canon has made (at least talking about the 24-70L I )

In fact, I own both, but neither gets packed for a wedding.

[tnis0612]

In what situations have you found yourself needing 2.8 in a wide angle? (i'm not saying there aren't any, I just havent found many myself so i'm curious) I personally have the 17-40, 35L, 50L and 70-200. I use the 17-40 a lot for dancing pictures during the reception but have never needed 2.8. With those shots i'm using flash and with people moving around i'd rather a little more depth of field anyway.

With my style I don't like using wide angle for much and the times I do need it I can't justify the price difference for 2.8. If you don't have a 35 though you will probably need something wider than 50 if you're with a bride getting ready in a small room. That's the only time I would use the 16-35 personally. It's all about your style and preference though, I like to get the emotions on their face without being in their face, so I prefer longer lenses when I can use them.

[timnosenzo]

I don't own a 24-70, but I do use my 16-35 for dancing shots during the reception.

[nicksan]

I sold my 24-70L because I never use it. I hardly ever use my 16-35L MKII. I mean, I pack it, and will use in on those rare occasions where I might need 16-24mm. Otherwise, my primes pretty much cover everything for me. If I want UWA, I use my 8-15L. In fact, ever since I got the 8-15L, I've hardly used the 16-35, except for maybe a few dancing shots here and there.

Still, I'll hang on to the 16-35. It's a nice lens.

[tim]

I use Nikon 16-35 and 24-70 lenses at every wedding, and I wouldn't want to be without either one.

[umphotography]

Originally Posted by tim

I use Nikon 16-35 and 24-70 lenses at every wedding, and I wouldn't want to be without either one.

^^^^^^^^

This

[Dasani]

Thanks eveyone. I'll only use the 16-35 in tight room and when they dance.... Thought an extra stop will help since i dont like to work with flashes too much... I guess it more of personal preferrence. And the reason i want to get it of the 24-70 because i rarely use it lately

[form]

f/2.8 too dark for receptions IMO, f/2 or faster preferred for me. 16-35 I use for specific purposes including the dress, environment...24-70 I sold in favor of primes.

[amirg]

Originally Posted by form

f/2.8 too dark for receptions IMO, f/2 or faster preferred for me.

It really depends on whether you do your own lighting or solely rely on the available light at the reception venue. If it's too dark, even f/1.4 may not cut it. f/2.8, ISO 3200 + lighting handles any dim reception for us.

[form]

I would/have never relied SOLELY on available light at a reception venue, it is ALWAYS a blend. However, the less ambient being picked up, the less natural everything looks. Therefore, I want more ambient, and f/2.8 doesn't give me enough ambient unless I drag the shutter and induce ghosting, which I also don't want.