Gear Talk > Lenses

Canon lens setup for weddings

(1/5) > >>

kyle77:
Hi, long time reader and first time poster here.

My current lens setup for weddings is a 24-105, 50, and a 70-200 on a 1.3x body and 1.6x as a backup/2nd body. I'm considering swapping the 24-105 for a 16-35 ii.  Anybody use a 16-35, 50, and 70-200 setup and are happy with it?

I love my 24-105, and it produces some very nice images, but I have found that it is leaving me wanting more on the wide end (especially with a 1.3x body) and in low light.  Also, while my 70-200 produces very nice, sharp portraits with great bokeh and my 50mm works well indoors with low light and is good for subject isolation, I'm just not getting many images with the "wow" factor out of the 24-105.  And with every bride's mother running around with a rebel and a kit lens, I'm definitely having to produce lots of those "wow" images to make clients happy. Looking back, most of the pictures made with the 24-105 are at the wide or long end too.

So while I know the 16-35 will produce those amazing wide-angle shots, will it be worth it to lose those focal lengths between 35 and 50 as well as 50 and 70?

gjones5252:
I agree with you completely. I have a pretty similar setup. I currently have the 16-35 ii and while good I don't know that it will deliver the wow factor you're after. To me primes are the most sure way but they also require more work. It's definitely not point and shoot.
I am thinking about getting a 24-70 ii. My 70-200 ii gets amazing shots and so far it's one of the few zoom I believe that is able to get shots like what your looking for.  So although I haven't tried it appears the 24-70 has matched it. My 24-105 will probably be going up for sale. Even though I like it, it so far is only working well for my video use.
The only thing you will be losing for your photography is 35mm reach which you have covered especially when using both cameras.
So while I wouldn't get rid of my 16-35 I do wish I had invested into the 24-70 prior. But it will happen eventually.

wickidwombat:
the 16-35 is exceptionally good on the 1.3 crop it gives you effectively 21mm to 48mm which is great for wedding shooting i much prefer 20 to 21mm to the 24mm when i want to go wide

rhysb123:
I have the 17-40mm, 40mm, 50mm, 85mm and the 70-200mm all on FF.

I had the 24-105 - great lens but I started to find it a bit 'boring' (did I just say that?!). It's 'only' f/4 and, like you, I felt I wanted something a bit wider. I couldn't afford the 16-35mm so went for the 17-40 instead. OK it's still 'only' f/4 but inside venues it's fantastic! I get WA shots of interiors that I would have never achieved with the 24-105mm.

However, If I had the cash I'd swap to all primes: 24mmL, 35mmL, 50mmL, 85mmL and 135mmL.

But for now I'll dream on!!

Good luck, I'd get the 16-35mm, I think you will like it.

Rhys

dirtcastle:
I know Neuro is a big fan of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which is a 24-70mm equivalent on a 1.6x crop.

If I were a professional wedding shooter, I would opt for a full frame with a 24-70mm f/2.8 II as my core pairing. And then I would expand the long end with one of the 70-200mm f/2.8s. For spice, I would add one or two of of the L primes between 35mm and 135mm.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version