Canon lens setup for weddings

[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.

 

[marinien]

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.

I don't think that Neuro will agree that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a 24-70mm (f/2.8 ) FF equivalent on a 1.6x crop. I think he said (and I completely agree with him) that the 24-105mm f/4 IS is the closest lens on FF to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on crop.

 

[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.

I don't think that Neuro will agree that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a 24-70mm (f/2.8 ) FF equivalent on a 1.6x crop. I think he said (and I completely agree with him) that the 24-105mm f/4 IS is the closest lens on FF to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on crop.

True, maybe not "equivalent" focal length. I think it is 27-88mm on a 1.6x. But considering aperture, I believe the 17-55mm f/2.8 is the closest substitute for the 24-70mm f/2.8 Ls.

 

[bycostello]

i think your lenses are fine no need for change...

 

[BrianPowell]

Full time wedding shooter here, first time poster

Most of my favorites are shot at the wide end of my 16-35mm v2. see http://brianpowell.info

I've settled on this lineup:
two 5Diii bodies, 16-35 v2, 50 1.2, 70-200 f.28 v2, and the 100 2.8 IS macro.

It's a great coverage, does everything I need, and also crosses over to other kinds of photography pretty well (portrait, mainly, but some landscape and fashion etc.)

 

[dirtcastle]

Great shots, Brian!

I agree that a skilled shooter can get good results at the wide end. It's all about the composition (and keeping the bride away from those distorted corners ;-). I particular like when the wide shots look flat and have a painterly feel.

 

[MarkIII]

It really depends on what range you like to shoot in. If you want to be up in someone's business, sure a 16-35 will be great. If you like to give people their space while still being close, then a 24-70 would be perfect. Prior to me switching to full frame I shot a 28-70mm on a crop sensor 97% of the time. It worked perfect in weddings for me. Yes, I lacked in the wide end of things, but I was able to adapt. I also used my boss' 16-35 on my crop sensor, and I felt way to limited and constrained. (one reason I won't personally by a prime shooter)

I do bring out my 16-35 at receptions to get creative dance pictures, but during a ceremony not really. I'd rather have the flexibility of a slight zoom. The great part is the 24-70 starts at the mid point of the 16-35 so with that overlap you can get some good womp in your pictures.

My boss has his 16-35v1 glued to his camera almost always, however, after he used my 24-70 II during a ceremony he only hopes I won't use it so he can steal It from me. He has always stated how he loves his 16-35, but he now wishes he had the money to contemplate getting a 24-70 II.

Personally I'd go with the 24 - 70 II. I have no doubt you would be happy with it, and if you ever upgrade to a ff body it would only make you that much happier with your decision.

 

[jasonsim]

I'm not a pro nor a wedding photographer. I have shot one wedding for a friend and can say that I'd only use a few zooms if I ever did another. At the time I only had a 16-35mm f/2.8L II and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. I brought along a 35mm f/1.4L and 85mm f/1.2L II, but found that fooling with switching lenses was rough and lent itself to missing shots. I used the 85mm f/1.2L II quite a bit at the reception when I had more room to move around and the critical shots had already been taken.

Now that I have a 24-70mm f/2.8L II, I'd definitely take it along with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. I'd have each of those mounted to a full frame camera.

Now...if you are a second or third shooter, perhaps then you could use something as specialized as the 85mm, 50 or 35mm. I attended a wedding recently in Brazil where there were three shooters: one with a 24-70mm, one with 70-200 and one with the 85L. The one with the 85mm had more artistic license and seemed to be more free to explore.

--Jason

 

[sagittariansrock]

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.

I don't think that Neuro will agree that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a 24-70mm (f/2.8 ) FF equivalent on a 1.6x crop. I think he said (and I completely agree with him) that the 24-105mm f/4 IS is the closest lens on FF to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on crop.

True, maybe not "equivalent" focal length. I think it is 27-88mm on a 1.6x. But considering aperture, I believe the 17-55mm f/2.8 is the closest substitute for the 24-70mm f/2.8

There is no 24-70mm (on FF) equivalent for crops- it would have to be an f/1.8 zoom for the same DoF with equivalent FoV, and be f/1.2 to match the light capturing capabilities of the bigger sensor with larger pixels (two different factors, both contributing independently).
Once again, I'd recommend the 16-28 Tokina. Very sharp, and I keep recommending it to people who might be less worried than me about the front element.

 

[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.

I don't think that Neuro will agree that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a 24-70mm (f/2.8 ) FF equivalent on a 1.6x crop. I think he said (and I completely agree with him) that the 24-105mm f/4 IS is the closest lens on FF to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on crop.

True, maybe not "equivalent" focal length. I think it is 27-88mm on a 1.6x. But considering aperture, I believe the 17-55mm f/2.8 is the closest substitute for the 24-70mm f/2.8

There is no 24-70mm (on FF) equivalent for crops- it would have to be an f/1.8 zoom for the same DoF with equivalent FoV, and be f/1.2 to match the light capturing capabilities of the bigger sensor with larger pixels (two different factors, both contributing independently).
Once again, I'd recommend the 16-28 Tokina. Very sharp, and I keep recommending it to people who might be less worried than me about the front element.

So what lens is closer to a 24-70mm f/2.8 on a 1.6x crop, if not the 17-55mm f/2.8?

 

[sagittariansrock]

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.

I don't think that Neuro will agree that the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a 24-70mm (f/2.8 ) FF equivalent on a 1.6x crop. I think he said (and I completely agree with him) that the 24-105mm f/4 IS is the closest lens on FF to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on crop.

True, maybe not "equivalent" focal length. I think it is 27-88mm on a 1.6x. But considering aperture, I believe the 17-55mm f/2.8 is the closest substitute for the 24-70mm f/2.8

There is no 24-70mm (on FF) equivalent for crops- it would have to be an f/1.8 zoom for the same DoF with equivalent FoV, and be f/1.2 to match the light capturing capabilities of the bigger sensor with larger pixels (two different factors, both contributing independently).
Once again, I'd recommend the 16-28 Tokina. Very sharp, and I keep recommending it to people who might be less worried than me about the front element.

So what lens is closer to a 24-70mm f/2.8 on a 1.6x crop, if not the 17-55mm f/2.8?

No, you're right- the 17-55 is the closest- since it's the fastest zoom available. It's not not quite the same as a 24-70 on a FF though. Although, for stationary subjects the 2-stop IS compensates for the smaller, denser sensor.

 

[dswatson83]

I love the 35mm f/1.4 for detail shots and receptions. You should check out the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for Canon. It is getting awesome reviews so far (only been out for a week so not much detailed tests yet) but it is way cheaper than the Canon L glass, built just as well, looks awesome, and seems to be very sharp and quick at focusing. Canon's 35mm f/1.4 is 14years old and still very expensive and the new 35mm f/2 IS that Canon put out is sharp, but i'm just not ok spending that much for a prime lens at f/2...even with IS. I'm fine with the Tamron 24-70 VC instead when I need IS. The new Sigma is exciting for me because i'm struggling with some lens decisions and pricing decisions Canon is making.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 HSM Lens Hands On & Impressions - Spoiler...WOW!

 

[joshmurrah]

I'm tagging along here.

I'm in a similar situation, thinking about what makes up a decent wedding kit, and I have a 7D and 5D2, 24-105 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and 50/1.4+85/1.8 for when I have time to swap.

My thought would be that the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II would be on the 5D2, and I'd need to swap to a 16-35 f/2.8L II on the 7D as a GP zoom, the 24-105 is just not fast enough or have that apeture effect, for the 7D.

I'd take a 16-35 II over a 17-55 EF-S, because the 16-35 doubles as a great UWA on the 5D2 should I need it.

Ideally, I'd be on a 2x FF setup with 24-70 II and 70-200 II but there's that hobby-grade budget that's stopping me.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

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?

hmmm, your current setup is pretty solid (only thing missing is a FF body IMO, but you do have a 1.3 crop? Is that a 1d mk4?).

I would honestly say, if you can, keep the 24-105 for now and pick up a 16-35. If it's not in your budget to do that, then its really a matter of how bad do you want the wide end? How often do you think you'll go wide? How much overlap do you need? (IE - 16-35 on your 1.6 crop - you almost have to go 70-200 on your 1.3 crop. In which case the 50mm is the odd ball of the bunch because effectively the 16-35 would cover the 50mm range).

I was in a similar situation with a FF body and a 1.6 crop. My solution was to sell the 7d and the 10-22mm i had for the wide end. I have snagged a 16-35mm, now i need a backup body (lenses now are 16-35, 24-70 v1, 70-200 2.8 Non IS, 50 1.4, and 85 1.8).... though I liked my 7d and it served me well, the difference in effective FOV and IQ made my decisions for me (like, I would end up using my 7d as a lens holder...lol)

 

[kyle77]

Thanks for the replies all, I think I'm going for the 16-35.

There have been a few mentions of getting a full frame camera, and while my ideal setup would be a 24-70 ii on FF, I've become quite addicted to 1-series bodies, and a 1dx or 1ds III isn't in the budget right now. Although with everyone cranking out amazing shots and loving the AF on the 5d III, I might start considering it... I want an 85 1.2 first, then when my bank account recovers from its coma, it'll be time for full frame.

Once again, thanks for your input!

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Thanks for the replies all, I think I'm going for the 16-35.

There have been a few mentions of getting a full frame camera, and while my ideal setup would be a 24-70 ii on FF, I've become quite addicted to 1-series bodies, and a 1dx or 1ds III isn't in the budget right now. Although with everyone cranking out amazing shots and loving the AF on the 5d III, I might start considering it... I want an 85 1.2 first, then when my bank account recovers from its coma, it'll be time for full frame.

Once again, thanks for your input!

usually L glass is L glass and snagging that over non L is a no brainer. But, this is one of those exceptions! The 85mm 1.8 is a seriously awesome lens! I snagged one over the summer thinking in my head the whole time that this lens wouldn't perform. But, wow was I surprised! This little lens kicks but, and its cheap too. Save yourself the $1500 for now and snag it, put that $1500 towards a FF body to compliment your 1d!

Here's 2 I did using the 85mm!