Wedding Photo lens.

Anybody here uses the 16-35 2.8 0r the 17-40 4.0 for wedding photography?

There are so many situations that can come up in a wedding that you'll likely need a couple more lenses than either of these. They're both good lenses, but you're going to find that you'll need longer lenses in many instances. But when you need a wide-normal lens, these are both good choices.

I agree with Tom. Both are very good lenses but I think most photographers use the 24( 28 ) - 70( 75 ) range of lenses more when it comes to weddings for their primary lens.

Rob

Thanks for the responses, well appreciated... I think I will be getting the Tamron 28-75 2.8 as an all around lens, I also have the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS, and Iwill be using a 550 flash on camera with bracket. Camera is a 10D. Is this an OK setup? -And I think I'm referring to the camera mostly...or is it considered insufficient for weddings... Bloo Dog, you spoke about shooting weddings, and I might have read a thread where you say you don't anymore. Now, if you still shot weddings today, would you use a digital camera?

Thanks Bloo dog, that was an excellent response, and it will help me much.

Even though I am far from a pro I am going to give you my experience at a recent wedding. It was my nephew's wedding and I was not the "official" photographer but I more or less stuck with this person, with their blessing.

Out of the couple of hundred images that I took the 24-70 was on for probably at least 180 of those. It is a general reach lens for this purpose. I found it to be more than sufficient for the large groups. Only once did I have to change to my 16-35 and once I tried a couple with the 24-70 just for fun more than anything. It is pretty hard to beat the 24-70 in my estimation but given that all weddings don't have the physical space for groupings that this recent wedding had you may want to consider the 16-35 or 17-40 as well.

I carried the MKII all day and at the end of the day you know that you had been packing some weight around. If I was going to be doing this type of photography seriously I would probably go with the 20D less the BG-ED to save weight.

One hears the horror stories about photographers' camera failing. A backup would be a bonus along with a spare flash. I have a 10D as a backup and do have a secondary 550EX should this ever happen to me.

I have agreed to do a couple of friends weddings next year. Not because I want to get into this type of work but as a favor. I will shoot them with the MKII. I recently got a couple of 16X20's made from the MKII and they are absolutely awesome. So I have no qualms about the quality of digital in wedding photography, at least using this camera. The key is to find that quality lab that you are comfortable with, for both their service and quality.

If your first choice is the 16-35 or 17-40 for your primary wedding lens I think that you would find that you have to be way too close to your subjects in many of your shots. I would suggest something in this range along with the 24-70 range.

Thank you SSIM; very informative stuff, it will help me without a doubt... I do have a few other question if you don't mind sharing... and Bloo Dog feel free to jump in: SETTINGS.- I like to shoot most things in Manual mode, do you use Av or Tv? SSIM, did you shoot RAW or JPEG? How about ISO? White balance? Flash settings? And what do you think about a Fisheye for a few shots? Bloo Dog, ever used one? Thanks again!

JCK,

I did a complete wedding with the 17-40 and the 10D.

All shot AV, started of with RAW but daringly switched
to JPEG...

The wedding took place in the reg. office, afterwards champagne
reception in a local park (in the pouring rain) and later celebrations
at the couple's home.
I got great shots, incl. nice close-ups and also the customary ones
of all the 100 or so guests posing in the garden.

I know this is not a recommended set-up, but I would do it again
just like that unless I had a second camera.

Of just over 200 photos taken I supplied about 60 in an album.


-

Deeplydigital: Thanks for the input, sounds like a good time was had by all, I just hope your camera didn't get wet in the rain! -BTW, how did your JPEGS come out compared to RAW? I know it's mostly an issue of processing interest, but still curious... Also, I will visit your country someday, I have been to western Europe and drove Scotland throughout, had a great time, but i have heard so much about the beauty and friendliness of the Emerald Isle.
Bloo dog: Awesome! You continue to provide me with information that will be vital in my book, and sincerely cannot thank you enough!

The 10D was wearing a shower-cap for the occasion,
in the park only. It got a few drops on it but was ok.
I was careful.

The JPEGS turned out fine, I did post processing on
all the pics but nothing major needed to be done.
WB was good throughout, though I added some warmth
to the outside group shots (very overcast with rainclouds
on the way).

Ireland can be very photogenic, the light is often very special.
And yes, the people are very friendly, but-
everything is becoming more European-American by the day...
You should come here soon.

-