Wedding photographers...

Which wide angle lens do you use the most to capture couple shots / portraits involving the scenery / sky etc.

my 35L isn't wide enough, and at times i wish i had something ultra wide for those kind of shots.

might as well look at the 24-70... 24 is borderline ultrawide IMO.

I think for weddings, the new 24-70 II will be the new gold standard.

I use the 24mm L II.

I have the 16-35 in my bag but rarely take it out. Too likely to get some ugly distortion toward the edges with people. 24-70 is good option. I used the V1 for a couple of years and now the V2. Outside I also use 24-105 The extra 35mm is nice to have for portraits. 70mm is just a tad short for my taste.

HiepBuiPhotography wrote in post #15186438
I use the 24mm L II.

Me too. I use it whenever I get the chance. There is no lens like it, IMO. It is the widest f/1.4 lens you can get. It gives you sufficient shallow DOF and a great expansive angle of view.

so does 24-70 II have much distortion towards the edges?.. because i'd be happy to invest in that sometime in future..

Agree with majority here. 24 1.4L II on FF is just magical. That 1.4 brings a lot of creativity when shallow DOF is needed.

another 24mm guy here too. I find any wider and the subjects get lost in an overly dominant background.

16-35 only comes out to play with large family shots or indoors in tight spaces.

the 24 1.4 is wonderful for dimly lit receptions too.

I generally shoot 24-50-85-135. The 24 is wide enough most of the time, but if we are going to be in the forest, I choose the 16-35 to emphasize the height of the trees.

The Wife uses her 24-70 mk I very heavily during weddings, switching between that and the 70-200 2.8 IS, with a handful of other lenses thrown in for specialty shots. For FF versatility, there's a reason Canon's 24-70L is the go-to lens for wedding photographers.

24-70 here also.....IMO, it's usually the best "go to" lens for weddings

I personally use the 16-35 paired with a 70-200. So for wide angles I use the 16-35... :X

i would just like to add that the main reason that I ditched the 24-70 (beside how I found the focal range awkward/limiting) was the aperture. Being locked at F/2.8 either meant flash or high ISO because of the poor lighting I constantly found myself shooting in. The extra stops that primes gave me were life saving. I'm at the point where I don't settle for second best when it comes to my work. I tried that for several years and while bounced flash produced better results under some conditions, not all rooms had low/white ceilings to help me get around those impossible conditions that would always pop up.

At this point I usually get told how primes and lens changing cost shots. I believed this to be a solid point of debate when I was a zoom guy. Experience has told me this is not true. I work with a think tank lens changer messenger style bag which holds my 3 main primes, facing down, lens hoods on, and all lens caps off. I wear a lowepro belt with a two lens cases, each housing my two zooms. I can turn the camera off, pull off a lens, put a new one on, turn camera back on in about 7 seconds if need be. After years of trying out cumbersome, bulky walkaround-with-gear combinations, I've found this to be the most efficient, light and convenient method to shooting weddings without being weighed or slowed down. (yes I've even ditched the 2 camera technique) In this approach I can grab a 24mm prime or 16-35mm zoom depending on how I want to tackle a particular shot.

Pearlallica wrote in post #15194035
i would just like to add that the main reason that I ditched the 24-70 (beside how I found the focal range awkward/limiting) was the aperture. Being locked at F/2.8 either meant flash or high ISO because of the poor lighting I constantly found myself shooting in. The extra stops that primes gave me were life saving. I'm at the point where I don't settle for second best when it comes to my work. I tried that for several years and while bounced flash produced better results under some conditions, not all rooms had low/white ceilings to help me get around those impossible conditions that would always pop up.

At this point I usually get told how primes and lens changing cost shots. I believed this to be a solid point of debate when I was a zoom guy. Experience has told me this is not true. I work with a think tank lens changer messenger style bag which holds my 3 main primes, facing down, lens hoods on, and all lens caps off. I wear a lowepro belt with a two lens cases, each housing my two zooms. I can turn the camera off, pull off a lens, put a new one on, turn camera back on in about 7 seconds if need be. After years of trying out cumbersome, bulky walkaround-with-gear combinations, I've found this to be the most efficient, light and convenient method to shooting weddings without being weighed or slowed down. (yes I've even ditched the 2 camera technique) In this approach I can grab a 24mm prime or 16-35mm zoom depending on how I want to tackle a particular shot.

That's an interesting style Pearlallica, I don't know if I'm able to do that kind of thing lol. I lamost have to have two cameras all the time, unless ofcourse I'm shooting street, then it's just me a mark II and a 35L :P