24-70mm or 16-35mm for Weddings

Currently have 24-70mm (my workhorse) but debating if I should replace with 16-35mm for weddings and other events. I like the perspective of the 16-35 provides but not sure if the 16-35 is capable be my workhorse lens for weddings. Base on what I have, do you think replace the 24-70 is a good move? Feedback is greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Bryan

I personally much prefer the 16-35 FL. Aside from ring shots I only use 24L, 50 1.4, 16-35L and 135L. And honestly I could easily shoot a wedding with only the 24 and 50 if I had to. When I shot crops I had the 17-50 and barely used the long end, but always wished it was wider.

I have both and while the 16-35 spends a lot of time on one of my cameras, the 24-70 spends much more. Only you know your style and what works for you, but I see the 16-35 as a supplement and not a replacement to your "workhorse".

25-70 is more useful than 16-23

My style is not to shoot super wide, thus I do not have a 16-35 (even though I am looking to replace my tokina 11-16 with a tokina 16-28.)

If you only shoot as long as 35, then no reason to have the 24-70. Look at your exif info to see what focal length you use.

I have both, but for a long time only had the 24-70 and used it on 40D's as I was aiming to go full frame at some stage.

I had to borrow a wide angle for certain churches (small) and it was the 16-35 I was loaned. Now I have full frame and both lenses. I would manage 90% of the time without the 16-35 and would not want to have the 16-35 as my only lens.
Geoff

I consider both (or the ranges at least) necessary for a professional.

Well, it depends a bit on the style you shoot.

If you tend to favor the long end, it makes no sense to replace the 24-70. If you frequently need it a bit wider, then go with the 16-35. It's all in how you like to shoot.

You gotta have both in my opinion. I could shoot an entire wedding with the 24-70 but like the 16-35 at receptions.

24-70 and a 1.4-1.8 range prime for when the light gets tough. No use having both of those zooms IMO but some people will definitely disagree.

It's called the Holy Trinity for a reason. I've gotten by w/out a 16-35 many, many times, but I would not be comfortable going into a wedding w/out the 24-70. I think we develop work methods based on what we have and for me, the brick is too good at getting ready details, reception details, and all the dance floor stuff, whereas the 16-35mm has really only come out for a couple of shots per wedding, if that. (ultra wide reception details / church interior) Luckily I work with a second shooter that usually brings a 16-35, but I've really started thinking I need to bit the bullet and just get one.

I had the same debate. So go with a 24-70L and add a Sigma 12-24mm to your kit for SUPER-DUPER wide shots

iluxa007 wrote in post #12
So go with a 24-70L and add a Sigma 12-24mm to your kit for SUPER-DUPER wide shots

I never thought of that. Thanks for the advise. Do you know how sigma 12-24 compare to 16-35L in term of image quality?

They're on par and some people stated that the sigma was sharper at same settings. I honestly never had a better UWA in terms of sharpness. This lens blows me away, seriously. This lens came out this year so Sigma has another winner compared to canons old UWA's. Sigma also has an old version of 12-24mm, and I wouldn't suggest getting that. Get the newest version, the II.

Don't even think twice, just get it. You will thank me later.

I don't know about the quality of the Sigma 12-24 but I think that's too wide to be useful. The 16-35 might be a better choice.