Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 11 Dec 2011 (Sunday) 00:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24-70mm or 16-35mm for Weddings

 
bizzle23
Member
Avatar
212 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Dec 11, 2011 00:57 |  #1

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


1DXMKII | 5DMKIII | 7DMKII | 16-35 2.8L II | 24-70 2.8L II | 70-200 2.8L IS II | 85 1.2L II | 100 2.8L | SIGMA 50 1.4 ART | SIGMA 15 2.8 FISHEYE | (3) 600EX- RT | 055CXPRO4 + 498RC2
Website (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
snakeman55
Goldmember
Avatar
1,223 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Baltimore, Md
     
Dec 11, 2011 03:26 |  #2

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.


-Adam
Wedding Photographers in Maryland (external link)
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Peacefield
Goldmember
Avatar
4,022 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2008
Location: NJ
     
Dec 11, 2011 06:47 |  #3

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".


Robert Wayne Photography (external link)

5D3, 5D2, 50D, 350D * 16-35 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 100-400 IS, 100 L Macro, 35 1.4, 85 1.2 II, 135 2.0, Tokina 10-17 fish * 580 EX II (3) Stratos triggers * Other Stuff plus a Pelican 1624 to haul it all

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gel
Goldmember
Avatar
1,145 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Brighton , East Sussex
     
Dec 11, 2011 12:38 |  #4

25-70 is more useful than 16-23


Chris Giles Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Red ­ Tie ­ Photography
Goldmember
Avatar
3,575 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2009
Location: San Diego
     
Dec 11, 2011 13:51 |  #5

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.


Bryan
Gear List (external link)
San Diego Wedding Photography - Red Tie Photography (external link)
Red Tie Photography Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
G..
Member
190 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Paphos, Cyprus
     
Dec 13, 2011 02:09 as a reply to  @ Red Tie Photography's post |  #6

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


A British Photographer in Paphos
www.paphosweddingphoto​graphy.com (external link)
www.facebook.com/papho​sweddingphotography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,987 posts
Likes: 361
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Dec 13, 2011 02:43 |  #7

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


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PMCphotography
Goldmember
Avatar
1,775 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Tasmania, Australia.
     
Dec 13, 2011 03:17 |  #8

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.


Twitter (external link)
Hobart Wedding Photography (external link)
I have some camera stuff. Here it is.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jerrybsmith
Senior Member
Avatar
299 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Houston, TX
     
Dec 13, 2011 06:41 |  #9

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


www.jerrybsmith.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DirtyMax
Member
33 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Dec 15, 2011 14:20 |  #10

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Philco
Senior Member
Avatar
940 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2005
Location: SandyEggo, CA.
     
Dec 15, 2011 21:02 |  #11

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.


Canon 5D MKIII/Canon 5D MKII/ 70-200 F2.8 IS L / 24-70 F2.8L / 85 F1.2L II/ 35 f1.4L / 135 F2.0L / Canon 600 EX-RT X 2

[SIZE=1]r follow me on Facebook. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iLvision
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,766 posts
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Western pot hole city, Massachusetts
     
Dec 15, 2011 21:25 |  #12
bannedPermanent ban

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 :)


Ilya | Gear | flickr (external link) D800| 14-300mm f/1.4GL ED VR III USWM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bizzle23
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
212 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Dec 16, 2011 16:55 |  #13

iluxa007 wrote in post #12 (external link)
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?


1DXMKII | 5DMKIII | 7DMKII | 16-35 2.8L II | 24-70 2.8L II | 70-200 2.8L IS II | 85 1.2L II | 100 2.8L | SIGMA 50 1.4 ART | SIGMA 15 2.8 FISHEYE | (3) 600EX- RT | 055CXPRO4 + 498RC2
Website (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iLvision
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,766 posts
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Western pot hole city, Massachusetts
     
Dec 16, 2011 16:59 |  #14
bannedPermanent ban

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.


Ilya | Gear | flickr (external link) D800| 14-300mm f/1.4GL ED VR III USWM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jerrybsmith
Senior Member
Avatar
299 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Houston, TX
     
Dec 16, 2011 17:36 |  #15

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.


www.jerrybsmith.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,347 views & 0 likes for this thread
24-70mm or 16-35mm for Weddings
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Yekeen Jamiu
1108 guests, 250 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.