16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings

[privatebydesign]

If you limit yourself to available light, a very dying breed nowadays, and you anticipate very low light levels where iso 5000 with a 5D MkIII won't cut it (macguyver's example was only at 2500 and f2.8) which is basically three stops over the best we used with film, then the f2.8 is your choice.

But those situations are few and far between for most of us. The truth is there are way more options open for us now with wireless flashes and superb high iso performance than there ever was with fast film, if I was buying new today I'd do what macguyver just did and sell his 16-35 f2.8 and get the f4 IS. Sure there might be situations where that one stop won't work, but we now have options, if you get enough function work where f4 limits you get a 24 f1.4 or a 600-EX-RT and ST-E3-RT to augment it.

Some good points, private, though I still think there's something unique (and better) about available light for event shooting, though I'd probably use lights for a wedding to avoid risking things. The new lens is definitely an improvement over the 2.8 II, but it doesn't make the 2.8 II a lousy lens and if f/2.8 were more important than sharper corners and lower CA, I'd go for the 2.8 II. For people who rarely shoot events, the f/4 IS is cheaper and better for everything else, and as you say, you can always add light

I am a poor photographer, am still running the 16-35 f2.8 MkI, because we needed that with 800iso film!

I recently shot a wedding with a very dim reception, mood lighting was the term I think, dungeon would be more accurate, plus it was small with nowhere to put stands. I gelled a couple of 600-EX-RT's and put them on the tables and bounced off the ceiling, I also had one on camera, this made the weak DJ lights look much more effective and gave me enough fake ambient to work with my 1Ds MkIII's with their 1600iso limit (but I never go over 800 with them either).

I agree some shooters will always need more speed, but I'd advise any natural light specialists to go for 1.2-1.8 primes over 2.8-4 zooms anyway. I just get the feeling that there is a touch too much generalisation here from some people sometimes, we used to shoot 2.8 800iso images all the time, now many can easily shoot 5,000iso and that more than makes up for the one stop loss in lens speed for the same shutter speed value.

I really like your function examples, and you make the 2.8 point very well, but you could, if you had needed to, gone up one stop of iso, 2,000 to 4,000, and/or had a remote 600 popped into the canopy that would have blended well but not been obvious.

A dungeon, eh? That's too funny, and always seems to happen when your client says the location is "well-lit" right? Based on DxO's measurements, the 16-35 MkI is still a nice lens, so I wouldn't be too sad. Going for the f/1.2 & 1.4 lenses is definitely the way to go if you want to get lots of the ambient and stop the motion for sure, but you still have thin DOF to deal with, even at f/2. I like the challenge and look of it, but wouldn't risk missing a shot at a wedding. I was at a wedding recently where the photographer popped light on a stand and moved it around the room as she worked keeping it around 15-30 feet from her subjects. The photos came out pretty well but still had the dark background. Using some flashes on the tables sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure the bounce worked well.

You're right about the ISO in my examples - I could easily have bumped it up and in practice, I did in the dimmer areas, going up to 6400, which is about as high as I dared with the 5DII. I think they're good examples of how even slow motion can be an issue if the light is lower, though.

Speaking of film, I laughed when I read one of Art Wolfe's recent books talking about trying to shoot wildlife with ISO 25 film. Yikes

Oh I am not sad, the 16-35 MkI fitted in my underwater housing whereas the MkII didn't, that was the main reason I kept it. Housing has long gone but the lens lives on. Having the 17TS-E for the times I need sharp corners, and so much more, make swapping it out for anything a low priority.

Wedding prime shooters, the real artists, are a very small breed, Jeff Ascough is my personal favourite and he truthfully is an artist, though it is surprising how much he relies on post to get his exposure and contrast where he wants it. http://www.jeffascough.com/wedding-photographs/

As for film, I delayed jumping to digital in the early 2000's when Velvia went from 50iso to 100iso, wow a whole stop more, for free!

 

[bosshog7_2000]

Ughh....

Weddings....ahhh weddings....nothing like capturing someone's special day 10 years before the next special day when they sign the divorce papers. I've shot enough weddings to know that I will never do it again...kudos to those who do...what a drudgery.

Sorry...totally off topic I know... ;D

As for your question....I would go for the 16-35 f4....today's high ISO combined with IS and whatever flash system you have would more than make up for it. Besides....when you tire of wedding photography the new 16-35f4 is supposed to be sharper in the corners...which will work nicely for your new career as a landscape photographer

 

[mackguyver]

Oh I am not sad, the 16-35 MkI fitted in my underwater housing whereas the MkII didn't, that was the main reason I kept it. Housing has long gone but the lens lives on. Having the 17TS-E for the times I need sharp corners, and so much more, make swapping it out for anything a low priority.

Wedding prime shooters, the real artists, are a very small breed, Jeff Ascough is my personal favourite and he truthfully is an artist, though it is surprising how much he relies on post to get his exposure and contrast where he wants it. http://www.jeffascough.com/wedding-photographs/

As for film, I delayed jumping to digital in the early 2000's when Velvia went from 50iso to 100iso, wow a whole stop more, for free!

I too have admired his work for a long time, too, and when I used to do more event work, I'd check out his site/blog frequently for inspiration. I don't know if you've read his CPN posts of recent times, but he says that he has switched to f/2.8 zooms and high ISO for most of his work, at least that's what he's said as a paid Canon shooter. Given the amount of post and his use of grain, I guess it's not much of an issue.

Velvia was great stuff - it was like perfect post processing done in camera . I've tried all of the simulations, even DxO Filmpack's very good one, but there's a richness that's missing from them, just like the Provia profiles. The Tri-X and Portra simulations from DxO are amazing, though, and I really like using them when appropriate.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Oh I am not sad, the 16-35 MkI fitted in my underwater housing whereas the MkII didn't, that was the main reason I kept it. Housing has long gone but the lens lives on. Having the 17TS-E for the times I need sharp corners, and so much more, make swapping it out for anything a low priority.

Wedding prime shooters, the real artists, are a very small breed, Jeff Ascough is my personal favourite and he truthfully is an artist, though it is surprising how much he relies on post to get his exposure and contrast where he wants it. http://www.jeffascough.com/wedding-photographs/

As for film, I delayed jumping to digital in the early 2000's when Velvia went from 50iso to 100iso, wow a whole stop more, for free!

I too have admired his work for a long time, too, and when I used to do more event work, I'd check out his site/blog frequently for inspiration. I don't know if you've read his CPN posts of recent times, but he says that he has switched to f/2.8 zooms and high ISO for most of his work, at least that's what he's said as a paid Canon shooter. Given the amount of post and his use of grain, I guess it's not much of an issue.

Velvia was great stuff - it was like perfect post processing done in camera . I've tried all of the simulations, even DxO Filmpack's very good one, but there's a richness that's missing from them, just like the Provia profiles. The Tri-X and Portra simulations from DxO are amazing, though, and I really like using them when appropriate.

Jeff often gets a lot of critism for is envious relationship with Canon as one of their Ambassadors of Light. But he was heavily influential in the 5DIII's specification, in fact I'd go as far to say that camera was pretty much his personal wish list...which is great for every one.
Jeff has a lot of influence over photographers and many are envious of his opinion and often make snide remarks about him being a shill to shift more lenses. But the reality is he buys all his own kit and makes reviews based on his personal observation.
Most photographic artists need to cycle through their kit regularly to keep fresh and apply old principles in a new context. Jeff looks like he's concetrating more on composition and placement than isolation by depth of field at the moment. So f2.8 zoom lenses make a lot more sense in that context than a large bag of big heavy fast primes....lets face it, a 24-70 is a LOT lighter than a 24L/35L/50L/85IIL. With bright sunny weddings, I like to run witha 24-70L on one cam and a 135L on the other...a great combo. But I prefer my photos using a 35L and 85L combo....but that's just me.

 

[mackguyver]

Jeff often gets a lot of critism for is envious relationship with Canon as one of their Ambassadors of Light. But he was heavily influential in the 5DIII's specification, in fact I'd go as far to say that camera was pretty much his personal wish list...which is great for every one.
Jeff has a lot of influence over photographers and many are envious of his opinion and often make snide remarks about him being a shill to shift more lenses. But the reality is he buys all his own kit and makes reviews based on his personal observation.
Most photographic artists need to cycle through their kit regularly to keep fresh and apply old principles in a new context. Jeff looks like he's concetrating more on composition and placement than isolation by depth of field at the moment. So f2.8 zoom lenses make a lot more sense in that context than a large bag of big heavy fast primes....lets face it, a 24-70 is a LOT lighter than a 24L/35L/50L/85IIL. With bright sunny weddings, I like to run witha 24-70L on one cam and a 135L on the other...a great combo. But I prefer my photos using a 35L and 85L combo....but that's just me.

I didn't mean for my comment to come off as disparaging in any way to Jeff. I was just trying to say that as a paid Canon photographer, he might make some comments that are somewhat influenced by Canon. In this case, he might actually be using zooms most of the time, but he also might just be using them more. His point about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II vs 135 f/2 are valid for example, but looking at his recent work, it still looks like he uses his primes a fair bit. I wasn't trying to say that he lies or has sold out to Canon or something, because that's obviously not the case. He seems like a respectable gentlemen and as you say, I'm sure his input to Canon has benefited us all.

The one thing that impresses me most about him is that while he almost never uses flash, he has the ability not only to be in the right place/right time and find a great composition, but also find great light. It's quite a talent and one that has clearly come from his many years of experience and hard work.

As for the prime/zoom argument, it's one I go back & forth on myself. I'm fortunate enough to have a great set of primes and zooms, so I'm able to pick the best tools for the job, often using a combination of the two.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Jeff often gets a lot of critism for is envious relationship with Canon as one of their Ambassadors of Light. But he was heavily influential in the 5DIII's specification, in fact I'd go as far to say that camera was pretty much his personal wish list...which is great for every one.
Jeff has a lot of influence over photographers and many are envious of his opinion and often make snide remarks about him being a shill to shift more lenses. But the reality is he buys all his own kit and makes reviews based on his personal observation.
Most photographic artists need to cycle through their kit regularly to keep fresh and apply old principles in a new context. Jeff looks like he's concetrating more on composition and placement than isolation by depth of field at the moment. So f2.8 zoom lenses make a lot more sense in that context than a large bag of big heavy fast primes....lets face it, a 24-70 is a LOT lighter than a 24L/35L/50L/85IIL. With bright sunny weddings, I like to run witha 24-70L on one cam and a 135L on the other...a great combo. But I prefer my photos using a 35L and 85L combo....but that's just me.

I didn't mean for my comment to come off as disparaging in any way to Jeff. I was just trying to say that as a paid Canon photographer, he might make some comments that are somewhat influenced by Canon. In this case, he might actually be using zooms most of the time, but he also might just be using them more. His point about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II vs 135 f/2 are valid for example, but looking at his recent work, it still looks like he uses his primes a fair bit. I wasn't trying to say that he lies or has sold out to Canon or something, because that's obviously not the case. He seems like a respectable gentlemen and as you say, I'm sure his input to Canon has benefited us all.

The one thing that impresses me most about him is that while he almost never uses flash, he has the ability not only to be in the right place/right time and find a great composition, but also find great light. It's quite a talent and one that has clearly come from his many years of experience and hard work.

As for the prime/zoom argument, it's one I go back & forth on myself. I'm fortunate enough to have a great set of primes and zooms, so I'm able to pick the best tools for the job, often using a combination of the two.

No probs bud, he's a photographic hero of mine, like Guy Edwardes...top of their game and the very best in their genre.
I think in this case, Jeff is using the lightest kit he can get away with on the day and i really don't blame him for that. Most wedding photographers keep any eye on the weather reports and know their venues well, so it's quite easy to make the "prime vs f2.8 zoom" choice days before the gig. I regularly have a big kit bag in the back of my car and select what I need throughout the day, I'm sure Jeff does too. I've been to several of his wrokshops over the years and the last time I looked over his kit bag, he wisely packs a pair of flashes....which look like they have never been used. A consumate professional...a backup for nightmare lighting situations...which most likely will never occur, but if it did, he'd still get the shots!
My perefered load out is a 16-35IIL, 35L and 85IIL. But on sunny days it's way too bright to shoot wide open, so for me a 24-70L and 135L are a great sunny day combo. I have a 70-200 f28 LIS II in my car, but it only occasionally comes out during wedding receptions and weddings ceremonies where I'm banished to the back row of the church. I find it amusing at weddings were people like to label me a prime only photographer or a zoomset...or a flasher...when in reality it's about the photos one produces. The kit is a tool, but the goal is the photograph. When I handle a 35L or swap over to a 85IIL, I have a specific shot in mind. I like to mix up my lens choice on a "needs basis" and at the wide end, I have only the choice of a 16-35IIL or a TS-e 17L and that lens is very rare for me to get out at a wedding...and when I have it was for a specific shot. The same is true for the 8-15mm fisheye, a little use is quite enough of that particular lens!

 

[Ruined]

I am not understanding the recommendations some are giving for an f/4 lens.

Yes, new cameras can do 6400 ISO pretty decently. But 3200 ISO still has more detail, less noise, more contrast, 1600 has more detail, less noise, more contrast than 3200... and 12800 is still a mess. If 6400 ISO looked perfect landscape photographers would simply use 6400 for their low light shots instead of slow shutter/tripod, obviously that is not the case; there is still a lot you gain from a lower ISO across the whole frame - most importantly in this focal length the center for event photography.

That being said, any advantage you would get from the f/4 lens primarily in the corners would be obliterated by the higher ISOs that affect the whole frame. Compound this with the fact that when shooting people with a UWA you rarely actually use the corners for the subject to avoid perspective distortion, and the recommendation for the f/4 lens is even more befuddling. The IS is virtually rendered useless as well due to the higher shutter speeds needed for people.

I understand the excitement some are having for the f/4 IS as a landscape/travel lens, but for events there really is no comparison to the f/2.8 II, IMO. While you can use flash, yes, flash is banned at some places and hence should not be a crutch that you must rely on to avoid ISO-noise-riddled pictures. Flash can also disturb the guests more than available light.

As others have mentioned, sometimes f/2.8 isn't even fast enough, but that is a very poor/contradictory argument to recommend f/4. I personally use a combinations of zooms and primes, as while I love my 24mm f/1.4 in this range, it sometimes does not offer the focal length flexibility I want and obviously can't go wider than 24mm. Having the options of picking a very fast prime or a pretty fast zoom gives you the tools to be more prepared for whatever the event brings.

To draw a parallel, there is a reason Nikon still has the 17-35 f/2.8 in their lineup (which has lower IQ than the 16-35 f/2.8 II) even while the sharper-in-the-corners 16-35 f/4 and 14-24/f2.8 have been available for years. That reason is event photography, very simply - the 16-35 f/4 is too slow and the 14-24 f/2.8 focal length is not long enough on the tele end, plus the heavy/fragile bulbous element is not conducive to hectic events.

 

[privatebydesign]

I am not understanding the recommendations some are giving for an f/4 lens.

Yes, new cameras can do 6400 ISO pretty decently. But 3200 ISO still has more detail, less noise, more contrast, 1600 has more detail, less noise, more contrast than 3200... and 12800 is still a mess. If 6400 ISO looked perfect landscape photographers would simply use 6400 for their low light shots instead of slow shutter/tripod, obviously that is not the case; there is still a lot you gain from a lower ISO across the whole frame - most importantly in this focal length the center for event photography.

That being said, any advantage you would get from the f/4 lens primarily in the corners would be obliterated by the higher ISOs that affect the whole frame. Compound this with the fact that when shooting people with a UWA you rarely actually use the corners for the subject to avoid perspective distortion, and the recommendation for the f/4 lens is even more befuddling. The IS is virtually rendered useless as well due to the higher shutter speeds needed for people.

I understand the excitement some are having for the f/4 IS as a landscape/travel lens, but for events there really is no comparison to the f/2.8 II, IMO. While you can use flash, yes, flash is banned at some places and hence should not be a crutch that you must rely on to avoid ISO-noise-riddled pictures. Flash can also disturb the guests more than available light.

As others have mentioned, sometimes f/2.8 isn't even fast enough, but that is a very poor/contradictory argument to recommend f/4. I personally use a combinations of zooms and primes, as while I love my 24mm f/1.4 in this range, it sometimes does not offer the focal length flexibility I want and obviously can't go wider than 24mm. Having the options of picking a very fast prime or a pretty fast zoom gives you the tools to be more prepared for whatever the event brings.

To draw a parallel, there is a reason Nikon still has the 17-35 f/2.8 in their lineup (which has lower IQ than the 16-35 f/2.8 II) even while the sharper-in-the-corners 16-35 f/4 and 14-24/f2.8 have been available for years. That reason is event photography, very simply - the 16-35 f/4 is too slow and the 14-24 f/2.8 focal length is not long enough on the tele end, plus the heavy/fragile bulbous element is not conducive to hectic events.

The answer to that boils down to how much is good enough.

6400iso can easily be printed to 8"x12" with superb results, actually they can be printed much larger. Now I don't know about you but I find reception/function shots are generally album fillers or web gallery fodder and are rarely reproduced larger than 8"x12" anyway.

Also there is the counterpoint to IS doesn't stop subject motion, well in a dimly lit church during a ceremony nobody is moving, so IS will get you the shot more effectively than 2.8 compared to 4. Move to a reception with dancing and you are screwed either way, flash is the only ways you will get sharp dancers.

 

[TeT]

...Here's hoping the price of the "old" Mk II will drop after the release of the f/4.

Heres hoping NOT, I do a robust business buying and selling used.... margin on the 16 35 II is better than almost all of the lenses I handle.

 

[Ruined]

I am not understanding the recommendations some are giving for an f/4 lens.

Yes, new cameras can do 6400 ISO pretty decently. But 3200 ISO still has more detail, less noise, more contrast, 1600 has more detail, less noise, more contrast than 3200... and 12800 is still a mess. If 6400 ISO looked perfect landscape photographers would simply use 6400 for their low light shots instead of slow shutter/tripod, obviously that is not the case; there is still a lot you gain from a lower ISO across the whole frame - most importantly in this focal length the center for event photography.

That being said, any advantage you would get from the f/4 lens primarily in the corners would be obliterated by the higher ISOs that affect the whole frame. Compound this with the fact that when shooting people with a UWA you rarely actually use the corners for the subject to avoid perspective distortion, and the recommendation for the f/4 lens is even more befuddling. The IS is virtually rendered useless as well due to the higher shutter speeds needed for people.

I understand the excitement some are having for the f/4 IS as a landscape/travel lens, but for events there really is no comparison to the f/2.8 II, IMO. While you can use flash, yes, flash is banned at some places and hence should not be a crutch that you must rely on to avoid ISO-noise-riddled pictures. Flash can also disturb the guests more than available light.

As others have mentioned, sometimes f/2.8 isn't even fast enough, but that is a very poor/contradictory argument to recommend f/4. I personally use a combinations of zooms and primes, as while I love my 24mm f/1.4 in this range, it sometimes does not offer the focal length flexibility I want and obviously can't go wider than 24mm. Having the options of picking a very fast prime or a pretty fast zoom gives you the tools to be more prepared for whatever the event brings.

To draw a parallel, there is a reason Nikon still has the 17-35 f/2.8 in their lineup (which has lower IQ than the 16-35 f/2.8 II) even while the sharper-in-the-corners 16-35 f/4 and 14-24/f2.8 have been available for years. That reason is event photography, very simply - the 16-35 f/4 is too slow and the 14-24 f/2.8 focal length is not long enough on the tele end, plus the heavy/fragile bulbous element is not conducive to hectic events.

The answer to that boils down to how much is good enough.

6400iso can easily be printed to 8"x12" with superb results, actually they can be printed much larger. Now I don't know about you but I find reception/function shots are generally album fillers or web gallery fodder and are rarely reproduced larger than 8"x12" anyway.

Also there is the counterpoint to IS doesn't stop subject motion, well in a dimly lit church during a ceremony nobody is moving, so IS will get you the shot more effectively than 2.8 compared to 4. Move to a reception with dancing and you are screwed either way, flash is the only ways you will get sharp dancers.

So your justification for an f/4 lens is a single use scenario ( church) where the assumption is there is no motion (I.e walking down the aisle is not happening??), and there is also the assumption that it is so dim that f/2.8 will not be bright enough at 1/15-1/30? And further you are getting paid for a wedding and not bringing a tripod/monopod? All of those conditions occurring simultaneously seems a bit of a stretch IMO.

And for reception shots (which are not all in pitch black lighting) essentially give up on available light and use flash for all of them ?

Again, justifying f/4 is quite the stretch for a lens whose primary improvement is in the corners, an area that will generally be out of focus or have background for events anyway due to perspective distortion at this focal length.

Meanwhile, f/2.8 is very simple to justify - twice as much light for every shot which means you are able to do needed high shutter speeds and lower ISOs that are much more beneficial for this focal length than corner sharpness at events. Why would you prioritize corner sharpness that will be out of focus or background over quality of the center of the frame where the people are? Does not make sense to me.

 

[Skywise]

How about for something like fireworks or indoor/night videoing. I travel around a bit and like to video some of the hotels and indoor attractions I frequent, mostly all handheld. I've currently got the f2.8II on a 6D and got some great video of Disney at night just walking around and shooting the fireworks. The walking is jittery (I doubt I'm going to get that resolved too much) but I'm thinking it might help with handheld stationary shooting of things like fireworks or when I'm just doing things like slow pans (although compared to some of the video I've seen on YouTube without IS I must have rock steady hands!)

Am I going to lose that much light resolution for things like this with the F4 but gaining IS?

(I like shooting landscape too so the corner sharpness is an additional advantage but that's secondary to the videoing.)

 

[Ruined]

How about for something like fireworks or indoor/night videoing. I travel around a bit and like to video some of the hotels and indoor attractions I frequent, mostly all handheld. I've currently got the f2.8II on a 6D and got some great video of Disney at night just walking around and shooting the fireworks. The walking is jittery (I doubt I'm going to get that resolved too much) but I'm thinking it might help with handheld stationary shooting of things like fireworks or when I'm just doing things like slow pans (although compared to some of the video I've seen on YouTube without IS I must have rock steady hands!)

Am I going to lose that much light resolution for things like this with the F4 but gaining IS?

(I like shooting landscape too so the corner sharpness is an additional advantage but that's secondary to the videoing.)

IS does significantly help for video.

You may want to consider, however, the 35mm f/2 IS USM for your needs. It has fast aperture, a focal length that would work well for most situations you described, it is cheaper and it has IS. If you can deal with a prime, it would be fantastic for your needs.